Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (10:02): I rise to speak to my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020.

I want the Australian people to understand the importance of this legislation and why it is so necessary.

First some background.

The country of Norway has a population of fewer than six million people.

It sits next to the resource-rich North Sea.

The country's leaders decided long ago to make sure Norway's people, who own these resources, benefited from their extraction and sale.

As a result, Norway now has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world with a value approaching A$2 trillion.

That's more than $350,000 for every person in Norway.

Now compare that to Australia.

We have resources of minerals and energy that make Norway's seem insignificant.

'Our land abounds in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare.'

Our very own national anthem says it as plain as day.

We have enough iron ore to supply the world's needs for centuries.

We are have some of the world's largest reserves of aluminium, uranium, gold, copper, coal—the list goes on and on.

Just as it is with the people of Norway, these resources are the sovereign property of the Australian people.

And just like the people of Norway, the people of Australia should be rolling in the riches derived from the extraction and sale of these resources.

However, we are not.

Our federal, state, territory and local government debt is about 85 per cent of our GDP.

Private debt is about 135 per cent of GDP.

Families across Australia are struggling with the rising costs of living.

We have a housing crisis which is forcing many families to sleep in cars or on the streets.

We have some of the highest energy bills in the world, and crippling shortages of energy, in a country with abundant reserves of energy that most others can only dream of.

We have a public health system which cannot cope with demand.

We have increasing poverty and increasing welfare costs.

Something is very, very wrong here in Australia.

It is very clear that successive Australian governments have not made the right decisions about leveraging our resources for the benefit of the Australian people.

Australians receive the lowest share of benefits from their mineral and energy wealth of any country in the world.

The question is: why?

Why have successive coalition and Labor governments allowed our resources to be effectively pillaged by mainly foreign owned multinational companies for virtually no return to the Australian people?

Natural gas is the perfect example of this debacle.

Our gas reserves in the North West Shelf area are huge, and there are plentiful reserves elsewhere.

There are quite literally trillions of cubic feet owned by the Australian people.

As was noted in the committee inquiry into this legislation, we became the largest exporter of liquified natural gas in the world in 2019.

Exports from the North West Shelf are at more than $80 billion in value but Australia receives only $200 million or $300 million in revenue from it through the Petroleum Resource and Rent Tax (PRRT).

By comparison, the country of Qatar generates $26 billion in annual revenue from fewer LNG exports.

I've asked the current Prime Minister, the opposition leader and senior ministers of the former coalition if they understand what's going on with the riches owned by Australians in the North West Shelf.

None of them knew anything about it, and said so.

Our LNG exports continue to climb in volume, enriching foreign-owned multinationals and our manufacturing competitors.

So much gas is being exported that Australia is actually suffering a shortfall of domestic supplies—and there is no pipeline delivering North West Shelf gas to Australia where it is in very high demand.

This has created a situation which—on the face of it—is completely ludicrous.

Australia is the only large gas producer in the world where domestic prices are higher than international prices.

Another important reason for our domestic shortfall is that successive Labor and coalition governments have let these mostly foreign owned multinationals 'bank' our gas reserves.

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, they are sitting on proven and probable reserves that could provide Australians with reliable energy for decades to come.

These reserves are being locked away under retention leases for 30 years or more when there are:

local operators ready and willing to develop them,

local customers ready and willing to buy, and

many thousands of Australian households and businesses struggling with some of the highest energy bills in the world.

Successive Labor and coalition governments have been weak; they've been frightened by the threats these companies make and have worked actively to help these companies rip off the Australian people.

They have happily received many millions of dollars in donations from these companies as a reward for ripping off the Australian people.

They let foreign owned multinationals buy Australian housing stock, and they've let foreign owners buy about 20 per cent of Australia's water entitlements.

None of this is in our best interests.

Let me be absolutely clear: you have no business being a member of this parliament unless you are always acting to the benefit of Australia and all its people.

Here's your chance to show the Australian people you are truly acting to their benefit, by supporting the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020.

This is not a tax bill.

This amendment is aimed at increasing the domestic supply of natural gas at a fair price.

If the government and opposition fail to support an amendment requiring ministers and other decision-makers to act to the benefit of Australians, they need to explain why before casting their vote.

This is not to the benefit of the Australian people who own these resources.

This is to the detriment of the Australian people, and the major parties which form government in Australia are enabling it.

This amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 is profound but simple.

It should not even be necessary, but the great Australian gas rip-off enabled by successive Labor and coalition governments makes it necessary.

One Nation's amendment broadens the object's clause in section 3 of the act.

It states the object of the act is to 'ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community'.

What more do you want to know? That is just plain common sense. The Australian community might wonder why it's necessary for the act to state the obvious, but recent history demonstrates that decision-makers need this obligation placed on them by this amendment.

All of these mainly foreign owned companies exploiting our resources are laughing at Australia all the way to the bank.

And why not?

To them Australia is little more than a cheap dirt mine.

From 2014 to 2019, ExxonMobil Australia's revenue was about $56 billion, and it paid no tax.

In the same period, revenue for Chevron Australia Holdings was $28 billion, and it paid no tax.

Revenue for Woodside was $43 billion, and it paid only $1.2 billion in tax.

Santos made $23 billion and paid only $3 million in tax.

Enough is enough.

These resources belong to the Australian people.

It should be the Australian people who are benefiting from the exploitation of these resources.

Once they're gone, they're gone for good, and the Australian people will never get a fair return for their resources.

This amendment is an important step in correcting this ludicrous state of affairs.

And it represents an opportunity to get things right with the 'new' energy source everyone is talking about: hydrogen.

Naturally occurring hydrogen deposits are all over the place in Australia, and often associated with deposits of oil and gas.

It's the cheapest form of hydrogen because it doesn't require energy-intensive processes to produce it.

The former government's National Hydrogen Strategy says Australia is well placed to make hydrogen its next big export.

It says large-scale market activation will include enabling competitive domestic markets with explicit public benefits.

Our amendment bill is aimed at ensuring this really happens with hydrogen, and that this resource is not squandered for little public benefit as is happening with natural gas.

The major parties have screwed us on gas and oil—here's hoping they don't screw us on hydrogen too.

Anything less than full support for this amendment by members of this parliament will be a clear message to the Australian people that you are not acting to their benefit.

It will be a clear message that you don't care the Australian people are being ripped off.

It will be a clear message that you've been cowed into submission by mostly foreign owned multinationals.

It will be a clear message to the Australian people that you don't belong in this parliament.

I've worked on this for about the last five years, when it was brought to my attention about the resource that we have in Australia, and we are not getting the benefit of it. I note that, when I raised this in March 2021, Senator Ayres got up and said:

Offshore petroleum developments are already subject to a range of vastly more specific regulations to test if they're for the benefit of the Australian community.

Really? And he said:

Adding a redundant 'for the benefit of the Australian community' clause doesn't mean that oil and gas developments are environmentally sustainable; it doesn't mandate that Australian oil and gas investments should employ Australian workers and offer them decent wages and conditions …

It has got nothing to do with offering them decent wages and conditions. This is about the Australian people reaping the benefits from our resources. As I said to you, Norway have utilised their resources to the best of their ability for their people—six million people—and they have been able to make nearly $2 trillion from that.

Here in Australia, we're struggling with providing services, whether it's health care, housing or water, to our people in Australia. We have families living in their cars. We have an ever-increasing welfare debt. We have an ever-increasing debt to the rest of the world that we can't seem to be able to pay. When Prime Minister Albanese became Prime Minister of this country, he said he would see that multinationals paid their fair share of tax. What's happened with it? We haven't heard a word about it—nothing.

Here you have the best resource that we have, and we can make a lot of money out of it. If Qatar is exporting less LNG than we are and can make over $26 billion for that country, what the hell is happening here? The problem that I've found over the years in who I've spoken to with regard to this, the resource ministers, is that they didn't have a clue about it, didn't understand what they were talking about, weren't interested. Retention leases are only supposed to be for five years. We keep renewing them, because the lobbyists come in and take them to dinner, and it's: 'Oh no, mate, that's fine. We'll sign off on this. We'll give you another five years.' Some of the retention leases are more than 30 years old. It's got to be 'use it or lose it'.

We also need to build a pipeline from the west coast of Australia to the east coast to give the supply of gas that we need. You can build it if you have the will. But I find that in this place most of the people here have never run a business and they've never employed staff. They've actually come from universities, worked in political offices and then seen their way up to become members of parliament. You have no business acumen. You don't know the effects of it. You actually listen to the bureaucrats, who've got nothing to lose. No-one is held accountable in this place, not even the bureaucrats. They tell you what to do because you lack the competence, the knowledge or the business acumen to know what to do and how to make the decisions in this place that the people out there are relying on us to make for their benefit.

I will not give up on this. It absolutely disgusts me to think that Labor are not going to be talking to this bill today. They're not going to say a word on it. Why? Why are you shut down? Why aren't you speaking to this? Why aren't you going to explain to the Australian people what is to the benefit of the Australian people? If Senator Ayres is anything to go by, the fact is that successive governments, the benefit of Australia—why have we lost the Commonwealth Bank? Why have we lost the airports? Why have we lost water security? Why have we lost our electricity components? Why have we sold it to multinationals? The Australian people are getting to a stage where they own nothing. They've got no control of their country or their destiny. The politicians in this place, in my opinion, are basically useless, because I don't think you even know what the hell you're doing here. You collect your pay, you just show up and you don't understand the workings of this country, how to benefit the people of Australia. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (10:17): I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020. I note first and foremost that, while the aim of this bill is a worthy one, it is unfortunately flawed in a way that would result in unintended consequences that may in fact have the opposite effect to its original intention. I agree with the comments made in closing by Senator Hanson, particularly around the way business operates and the importance of our roles in determining legislation in this place. But I do need to talk about the specifics of this legislation amendment.

The legal system relies on explicit wording of legislation and clear definitions. By making the term 'for the benefit of the Australian community' open to interpretation by the courts, we would allow radical environmental groups to tie up any projects in legal fights. And it is not out of the realm of possibility that activist groups would use this amended objective to make the argument that an activity such as drilling an offshore well to recover oil or gas would contribute to climate change or have an environmental impact and that therefore it does not benefit the Australian community. This legislation amendment will expose the gas industry and potentially the entire resources sector to green lawfare and drive industry investment away from Australia. This will of course be disastrous for our economy, for Australian workers and for Australian businesses who are benefiting from the investments into these investments. And—

Senator Hanson: They can do that now, through the environmental act.

Senator McDONALD: Well, we would be providing them with another opportunity, Senator Hanson—would severely constrict regional Australia's ability to support businesses and families.

I also want to touch on Senator Hanson's comments with regard to the PRRT returns and company tax returns. I think what is not well understood is that, when these investments in these projects are made, it is billions of dollars not just in capital investment but also in precursory, environmental and other reviews. That costs a huge amount of money, which is able to be offset on part of the tax calculations, remembering that those dollars are spent in Australia with Australian companies employing Australian workers.

While this bill talks about community benefit, it is clear that mining in this country does already benefit the community in ways that may not appear on annual profit-and-loss statements. If we want to look at industry figures, the resources sector as a whole supports over 1.1 million direct and indirect jobs within Australia, contributing over $32.6 billion in direct salaries in 2021. The government has even acknowledged that the resources sector is to thank for a $50 billion budget boost this year and a brighter than expected fiscal outlook for Australia. The Australian oil and gas industry directly and indirectly supports over 80,000 jobs, contributed over $5.35 billion in tax in 2019-20 and recorded a $15.9 billion surplus in the trade of oil and gas. Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry paid more than $64.4 billion to the government, with contributions spanning decades totalling $161 billion since the mid-eighties.

This contribution is not limited to taxes. Over the last decade, the oil and gas industry has invested around $473 billion in the Australian economy. This includes about $170 billion spent directly, since 2007, on five offshore LNG projects, including Pluto, Gorgon, Wheatstone, Ichthys, and Prelude, and, as of last year, there are $120 billion worth of projects in the pipeline. That means more jobs in construction, supply chains and new operations. But we do, potentially, risk these investments with the introduction of the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction legislation, the Queensland government's increase in coal royalties and, potentially, this amendment, all of which go to undermining confidence in investment in this country.

Opponents of gas, coal and mining in general are quick to point out that tax and royalty payments are less than they believe they ought to be, but the full value of our resources sector is found away from the balance sheets, the prospectuses and annual reports. It is in the high-paying jobs both in the regions and in the metropolitan company head offices. It's in the sponsorship of sporting teams, events and community groups. Superannuation funds and shareholders rely on a profitable resources sector to supplement their incomes and pay for their retirement. This money flows through local businesses, creating employment, which is also taxed, generating more revenue for the government. Just as mining's ripple effect on the economy is far reaching, so too any impost on the mining resources sector will be felt far away from the pits, the pipelines and the corporate boardrooms.

Already, in Queensland, we are seeing big miners pull out of projects due to the state government imposing the world's highest coal royalties. This reduced investment in regional Australia is disastrous for engineering firms, food suppliers, workwear stores and everyone employed directly and indirectly by the mining and resources sector. Many of these businesses are run by families. They're not driving limousines or flying in private jets; they're cementing a future for their kids, providing apprenticeships and sponsoring local netball and football teams. Rugby clubs such as the Capella Cattledogs and the Emerald Rams in Central Queensland would struggle to survive without sponsorships by local businesses engaged by the resources sector. There is far more community support from resources companies operating in Queensland. We can point to a million dollars to build a new centre for the AEIOU Foundation in Townsville, which specialises in teaching children with autism; $6 million for the Banana Shire Library, museum and community hub; $8 billion for 16 affordable housing units in Isaac shire; $4.5 million for a pool in Mount Morgan; $7.8 million for a pool in Charters Towers; $834,000 for a sports facility upgrade at Cloncurry—the list goes on and on. And this is a snapshot of just one of the hundreds of resources companies operating in Australia that give back to local organisations and enrich small businesses. I can guarantee you that this Labor government would not be directing any additional royalties back to those regional communities.

Taking just one example from a submission to the committee that examined this bill, Chevron stated:

Over the past decade, during the construction of Gorgon and Wheatstone, jobs and industry opportunities surged, with over $60 billion spent on local content.

Post-construction, the plants have an operating budget over $1 billion a year, delivering high paying jobs and local contracts, with local content over 80%.

The projects supply domestic gas to Western Australian customers, supporting local jobs throughout the State and cleaner generation of electricity.

Over the past decade, Chevron has paid $5.8 billion a year in taxes and royalties. By the mid-2020s, we expect to be paying around $2 billion a year in taxes and royalties.

And this is just one company. Is this not already a benefit for Australian communities?

Across the industry, this has meant more export earnings, investments, taxes and royalties—things that benefit all Australians, as they provide the funds governments use to invest in infrastructure, education and social services. As the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association said in their submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill:

APPEA supports, and agrees, that the development of natural resources should be for the benefit of the Australian community.

…    …   …

The effect of this amendment, however, will do the opposite and will stymie investment.

…   …   …   

Claims that companies are 'hoarding' resources have been proven incorrect … and changing the objects clauses of the Act, under which hundreds of billions of dollars of investment have been made, drastically increases Australia's sovereign risk for no material gain.

The resources sector currently operates for the benefit of the Australian community, and the addition of this unnecessary amendment has the potential to simply shut down projects and drive investment offshore.

The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 provides for the safe and responsible operation of offshore oil and gas activities. It ensures that risks to safety and the environment are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. It also ensures that industry meets the requirements of good oilfield practice and ensures that the recovery of oil and gas is at its optimal level.

One Nation's proposed amendment alters the objectives of the existing Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 by adding the following clause:

to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community.

While this change may seem innocent enough, in effect it injects a major ambiguity and uncertainty into the act. Poorly drafted amendments as proposed today can be hijacked and have serious unintended consequences that would undermine future resources investment. We are constantly told these days that words have consequences, and it is definitely true in the case of this bill.

The coalition has previously spoken in opposition to the bill due to the broad nature of the amendment and the unnecessary wording, which has the potential to open offshore petroleum exploration and development to legal challenges. The Greens supported the same bill last time with amendments that defined 'community benefit' as relating to the effects of climate change, and oil and gas's contribution to temperature rises. In applying this definition to that 'community benefit' term, the Greens proved that the bill's wording can be utilised against the sector to push extreme antidevelopment agendas. I've already touched on the legal system relying on explicit wording of legislation and clear definitions. With this term 'for the benefit of the Australian community' open to interpretation by the courts, we would allow radical environmental groups to tie up any projects in legal fights.

It is clear from even the most cursory look at the contribution of resources to our society that any moving of the regulatory levers must be meticulously considered and only done as a last resort, especially if there are moves to decrease the profitability of these companies via increased royalties and taxes. We have already seen in Queensland the Labor government's royalty increase send shockwaves not just through the coal sector but through all mining activities. While Queensland Labor claim they are doing this to benefit the community, the early signs are that it will result in long-term harm for regional communities. Federally, we have seen the introduction of new requirements in the investment objectives of a number of government agencies, like Infrastructure Australia and NAIF, hamstringing investment in industries like the gas industry and sending signals to investors that the government does not support the industry.

Australia must understand that this is a highly competitive space. We must continue to present ourselves as a viable, responsible and appealing investment opportunity to ensure that we continue to benefit from this sector. Over 70 per cent of our nation's income is drawn from mining and resource activities, and not to mention the highly paid salaries and the regional investment that allow towns like Dalby, Chinchilla and Cloncurry to be thriving with the activity of mining in this country. Poorly drafted amendments that can be hijacked and have serious unintended consequences would further undermine future resources investments. There is no benefit to an industry that no longer exists. The coalition will not be supporting this bill.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (10:31): I rise today to speak in support of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020. This bill is striking in its simplicity. It seeks to ensure that any exploitation of fossil fuels is for the benefit of the Australian community. Our laws do little to guarantee that Australians get a fair share from the sale of our fossil fuel. Worse still, our laws are ineffective in protecting our climate environment against the impacts of their extraction. The flaws in our laws start with offshore leases being granted to companies under excessively generous terms. This amendment could tighten this loophole. But there also needs to be real reform to our tax system.

The companies that extract our fossil fuels are overwhelmingly foreign owned. Just look at the gas industry, where 96 per cent of the companies profiting from gas exports are based offshore. The income tax, royalties and petroleum resource rent tax that these companies pay is woefully inadequate. At times, there are misconceptions about the contribution of the fossil fuel industry to Australian prosperity. In fact, the total tax paid by fossil fuel companies represents less than one per cent of government revenue, and yet profits are at record levels. In the first half of this year, Woodside Energy and Santos made a profit of more than $4 billion between them, an increase of between 300 per cent and 400 per cent. The profit these two companies made in just six months is equivalent to the cost of sending all Australian children between the age of three and five to preschool for 10 years, or of electrifying a third of all Australian households. How, I ask members of the government and of the opposition, is that in the best interests of the Australian community?

What we need now is a windfall profits tax. A convincing case for this change is being made across the community, including by former Labor politicians, like former senator Bob Carr; former senior public servants, like Dr Ken Henry, Secretary of the Department of Treasury under former prime minister John Howard; business leaders, like Mike Cannon-Brookes, the largest shareholder in AGL, Australia's biggest polluter; prominent economists, such as Professor Ross Garnaut; and former chief economist of the World Bank, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who called the measures a 'no-brainer'; unions, including the ACTU; union leaders, like Dan Walton, Secretary of the Australian Workers Union; and public think tanks, like the Grattan Institute. Perhaps the strongest call for this change has come from the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, who recently said:

The fossil fuel industry is feasting on hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and windfall profits while household budgets shrink and our planet burns.

Any argument that it is too hard or that business will flee is a straw man. Just look at the United Kingdom, where the conservative government has responded to high fossil fuel prices by swiftly enacting a windfall profits tax. That change is expected to raise the equivalent of approximately $13 billion this financial year.

Recent research suggests that in Australia two out of three people support a windfall profits tax. It is no wonder given the soaring costs of energy bills that households are facing. My colleagues in Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and I may not agree on many things in this parliament, but, in this case, I admire their foresight on the issue of domestic gas prices. Introduced nearly two years ago, the explanatory memorandum to this bill highlights the problem of our domestic gas market. It highlights the problem of it being exposed to international prices. We are not involved in the war in Russia. We don't import gas from Russia yet we are paying export prices for our gas. It was long before the invasion of Ukraine that One Nation proposed this amendment. Since this bill was first introduced, the price of gas has increased threefold, as we continue to export 80 per cent of the gas we produce. The effect has been a huge increase in the cost of living for Australians across the country.

A well-designed windfall profits tax would push domestic gas prices down and reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australians. If the measure was applied to the domestic sales of gas and set by a gas reference price from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, it would act to efficiently reduce the cost of gas in Australia. In addition to a reduction in the domestic gas price, the revenue generated by a windfall profits tax could be used to fund development in rural and regional communities. The majority of fossil fuel extraction is from beneath land and sea near to these communities and it is right that the benefits are for them too. I would like to see the additional revenue used to set regional and rural communities up to benefit from a renewable energy future. This could look something like the Nationals' Royalties for Regions program in Western Australia and could be administered by an energy transition authority.

The Nationals rightly point to the need to invest in regional Australia, and Labor has an agenda to transition our economy. A windfall profits tax for the regions can help do just that. I call on the government to start work on the design of policy that will give Australians a fair share of the enormous profits being extracted from our land and seas. I also call on the government to ensure that fossil fuel projects do not go ahead where they are not in the interests of the Australian community. On this point, the IEA, the IPCC and climate scientists all agree it is in the best interests of the Australian community and the global community for there to be no additional fossil fuel projects, especially when projects are opposed by First Nations people.

First Nations people and their country and sea country are disproportionately and unjustly impacted by fossil fuel projects. Many have been fighting against the odds to protect their country from fossil fuel developments. I want to congratulate the landmark win by Mr Dennis Tipakalippa of the Manupi clan of the Tiwi Islands in the Federal Court last week. Tiwi Islanders argued before the Federal Court that Santos did not appropriately consult the Manupi clan about the impacts of the offshore Barossa gas project. In a legal first, witnesses gave powerful evidence on country in the Tiwi Islands about the physical and spiritual impacts that drilling could have on them, their culture and the sacred animals that call this sea country home. The case demonstrates the requirement for deep consultation with traditional owners before approval for drilling in sea country. It is vital that the voices of First Nations people be heard when gas projects such as Santos's Barossa project threaten their country. It is an historic decision, a true David and Goliath battle, and I applaud the Tiwi people for having the courage to take on one of the biggest resource companies in Australia. But this community courage and recent victory come against a backdrop of structural failure. Last week, the UN Human Rights Committee found that the Australian government has failed to adequately protect Torres Strait Islanders and has violated their right to enjoy their culture and lives, by failing to act on the climate crisis. We have to do better.

I support increased emphasis on the need for decisions around oil and gas to benefit the Australian community. This bill is essentially trying to deal with the state capture we see in Australia—both major parties not having the political courage to actually ensure that resources contribute to the wealth of everyday Australians. Over the last few decades we have seen policies that benefit multinational companies that come to Australia, extract our resources and ship their profits overseas. Senator Hanson rightly pointed to Norway and their approach to actually ensuring that their resources contribute to their national wealth. It's a stark, stark contrast to what we see in Australian politics.

My sense, when talking to everyday Australians, is that they want politicians to actually ensure that, if we are selling resources from our country, we're reaping the rewards, not multinational corporations, which, as we know, pay little tax and really push the line about jobs and how much they are investing in communities, which is total pocket change when you look at the amount of revenue that they're generating. We know that many of the job figures are also overblown. Another jurisdiction to point out, as Senator Hanson did, is Qatar, which produces less LNG than us but pulls in $26 billion a year in royalties. There's been a clear message from the Australian people that they want more transparency and they want the lives of everyday Australians put at the forefront. I really commend this bill and this amendment to actually ensure that fossil fuel exploration and profits are in the interests and to the benefit of everyday Australians.

On the broader point about new fossil fuel projects, it's clear that it's in the best interests of all Australians for them not to go ahead. So we face this point in time where we need to ensure that, with existing fossil fuel projects, we are storing the wealth from them and actually using it to transition our economy, and, when it comes to new fossil fuel projects, we have the political courage to do the right thing, to do the thing that scientists are telling us we have to do and that we know we have to do to actually protect all the people and places we love.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:43): Acting Deputy President O'Neill, you, yourself, remember the fights we had five years ago in this Senate chamber and through numerous committees to get companies like Chevron to actually pay some tax in Australia. It really hit home to me today, listening to the Liberal Party get up in here and talk about what a great taxpayer Chevron is and how many billions of dollars they're putting into our tax system, when the Australian Taxation Office had to take Chevron to the High Court in 2017 to get them to pay any tax. Chevron were Australia's biggest tax avoider. They ended up having to pay $340 million, thanks to the Australian tax office and senators in this chamber—

Senator WHISH-WILSON: pressing for some political action, Senator Scarr, and pressuring senators on your side of the chamber, Acting Deputy President, to actually do something to make big oil and gas corporations pay their fair share of tax.

We had a Senate inquiry, which the Greens initiated, into the petroleum resource rent tax in 2017—chaired by the very capable Senator Sam Dastyari, may I say. Right then, the government had what was called the Callaghan review, which they'd been sitting on for two years because the petroleum resource rent tax, called the PRRT, was the petroleum resource rort tax. These companies had clocked up nearly $340 billion in tax credits. In other words, they were going to pay no tax for the life cycle of the large gas projects in this country—a tax system invented in the 1980s and totally out of touch with the reality of the 2000s.

Senator Scarr: How much are they paying this year? How much are they paying this year? This year! This year!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: It was this chamber, Senator Scarr—through you, Chair—and senators who actually worked hard to get changes to the PRRT. But let me say how disappointing those changes were—25 per cent uplift on exploration rates. At the time of our inquiry, oil and gas companies could uplift their exploration expenditures by 15 per cent per annum and all their offshore operating activities costs by five per cent per annum. The Australian public would even pay for the clean-ups of oil and gas fields, because that was also deductible under the petroleum resource rort tax. The government, thanks to the pressure from this chamber, at least reduced that uplift on exploration expenditure to five per cent. But still we have hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits, and tax that could be paying for schools, hospitals and other important things in this country is not being paid. It is still a rort.

My colleague Senator Cox very shortly will talk about how the Greens have a very simple solution to this. I know crossbenchers in this place—One Nation, Senator Lambie and previously Senator Patrick—have all tried to bring in proper reform to the petroleum resource rort tax. We need a royalty rate of at least 10 per cent—a base royalty rate that deductions don't work against so that we actually get a return for the Australian people. Yes, some of these companies pay tax and, yes, they employ Australians. But remember: what other industry apart from mining gets its resources and inputs into its production for free? These companies are taking our gas, our oil, our condensate and other products, and they are paying nothing for them. Yes, they are extracting them and they are employing people, but they are paying nothing for them to the Australian people, who own these resources.

It's so typical of the LNP to come into this place and say: 'Well, leave it to the free market. They're employing people. Let them get away with these superprofits. Let them get away with paying no tax.' They're still doing transfer pricing. There's still dodgy related-third-party financing going on. There are a whole range of things that these companies are still doing. But I'm proud to be part of a party that, over the last decade, has led to at least some reform in this sector, and we need to see more of it.

But here is where the Greens fundamentally disagree with One Nation: we believe that the form of exploitation—to focus on that word 'exploitation'—of our oil and gas reserves offshore that would best suit the Australian people would be no new oil and gas projects. There are already enough hydrocarbons—enough oil and gas—in reserves that, if we exploit those, we will exceed our Paris target. We will exceed two degrees of warming. Even the conservative International Energy Agency said that, if we are to limit warming to 1½ degrees to protect the future generations on this planet—some of whom are watching this Senate debate today in the chamber—we have to stop exploring and exploiting new fossil fuel projects not just in Australia but internationally. We need to, as quickly as possible, move to a 100 per cent renewable energy footing. Of course we're still going to use petroleum products in the decades to come. There has to be a transition. But we need to move as quickly as possible. The last thing we should be doing is putting in place incentives in legislation, financial or otherwise, that encourage more greedy oil and gas companies exploiting our ocean with the exact same product that, when we burn it, is boiling our oceans, killing our coral reefs and the ecosystems off my state in Tasmania, like our giant kelp forest, and decimating our fisheries and decimating biodiversity in the womb of this planet that is our ocean. It is insanity in this day and age to be doing exactly that.

So what we actually need to do is have legislation in this place that stops all new oil and gas exploration, and the Greens have a bill before this august chamber to do exactly that—to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act to ban all new fossil fuel exploration. But I totally accept the spirit in which One Nation has brought this bill forward today: seeking to get a benefit for the Australian people from the big, greedy oil and gas companies that currently pay very little tax, thanks to an overly generous—extremely generous—and totally out-of-date tax system that relates to the royalties on oil and gas extraction from this country. I remember that we actually called a number of witnesses before the Senate, including the architects of the PRRT, and, as senators, we put the simple question to them. We said, 'Why shouldn't this system be totally reformed? This system was set up for oil production in Bass Strait in the late 1980s and 1990s. Now what we have is vertical integration and massive multibillion—in fact, trillion—dollar projects that extract gas. This was not set up for the gas market or the condensate market.'

I remember speaking to Dr Craig Emerson who was one of the architects of the PRRT. He said: 'Senator, if you change the system now, it will lead to sovereign risk. We won't see any more investment in new oil and gas projects.' Putting aside the fact that I didn't have a problem with that, I don't accept that changing a tax system purely for the benefit of corporations is in the public interest or that not changing a tax system purely for the benefit of oil and gas corporations is in the public interest. We have a duty to make sure that any mining company pays its fair share of tax in this country. Tax is not a dirty word. We need royalties; we need resource rents.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: It is for you, Senator Scarr. It is for you and the Liberal Party, and I totally understand that. But most Australians want to see corporations pay their fair share of tax. They know what it's like when they get a letter from the Australian Taxation Office or they get a call from their accountant and they're told that they didn't fill in their tax return properly or they owe tax to the Australian tax office. Individuals in this country know what that's like. Why should corporations, because they have access to power and influence, get away without paying their fair share of tax?

Once again, I am very proud to be part of a political party that has spent so much time and effort in this chamber, over many, many years, trying to get a fairer tax system for all Australians because, if we had a fair tax system for all Australians, we wouldn't actually have a revenue crisis. We would have the money we need to have a social security safety net and to invest in our people, in better health for Australians and in better education—all the kinds of things, Senator Scarr, I'm sure you would agree, would be an investment in the Australian public and in our future. But, more importantly, we would have the money we need to actually pay to avert the biodiversity crisis we have in this country. We would have the money to fully fund our recovery plans for 150 species and habitats—recovery plans which the previous government tried to have removed from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which were never resourced. We would have money in this country to assist farmers, to assist communities and to restore degraded habitat both in our oceans and on our land. We would actually have the revenue we need to pay for schools and hospitals and all those critical things. That comes down to one thing: do we have the courage as politicians—do we have the spine in this place—to take on big corporations?

Senator David Pocock talked about state capture in this place. It is a very apt description for the polity I have seen in the decade I have been a senator in this place. State capture is a simple concept. It means big political parties are captured by vested interests through donations and other influences, and they deliver policies those vested interests want. I don't think the Australian public voted for that; I think they voted for change at the last election. A third of all Australians didn't vote for major political parties; they voted for the Greens and other parties. They want to see change. They want to see us break this state capture that, let me tell you, has absolutely paralysed climate action in this parliament, in this building, in the last 15 to 20 years.

I'm glad we are finally moving on with some climate action in this parliament, and I know the Australian people support that. But if we really want to get to 1½ degrees warming—and I want to remind senators: if you believe in the science of climate change and if you look at the changes we are seeing in Australia and around the planet, that is happening at one degree of warming above pre-industrial levels. Record floods, record heatwaves, record fires, loss of habitat—that is happening at one degree of warming. The Paris Agreement wants to limit warming to 1½ degrees. That is a 50 per cent increase on what we've already got. That's not reducing warming in the system by 50 per cent and taking us back to half a degree of warming or reducing warming by 100 per cent and taking us back to 350 parts per million; that is already saying, 'We wave the white flag and accept this planet is going to warm by another 50 per cent on what we've already seen.' That's supposed to be a good thing. Yet the current government's plan is to have us on two degrees of warming. That's a 100 per cent increase on what we've already seen in our lifetimes.

Under the previous government we were on a business-as-usual scenario of three to four degrees of warming, which means that large parts of this planet won't be inhabitable. I don't need to tell senators what the costs of that will be not just to the environment, ecosystems and habitat but to us as a species and to everything we love and stand for. The only thing that's going to fix that is systemic change, and systemic change means political change. It means coming in here with courage and standing up for policies and changes that will at least limit warming on this planet to 1½ degrees.

If we are serious about that, the most important thing we can do is stop all new oil and gas exploration, offshore and onshore, in this country. You can be sure that's what the Greens stand for. That's what we will come into this place and fight for every day, as we have fought through the swamp-and-desert years of the LNP over the last decade in this building.

Senator Scarr: The idyllic plains! Beautiful valleys!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: We have been here fighting like hell, Senator Scarr, every day for climate action. That's what we do as a political party, and that's what we will continue to do. Every day we come in here we are going to fight for our communities, for our ecosystems, for marine life, for the animals on this planet and for all the things First Nations communities, we and—we know—many other Australians put value on.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (10:58): This is the second time I've been given an opportunity to speak to this bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020; I also spoke to this bill in the last parliament. I acknowledge there are many laudable objectives that sit behind this private senator's bill. There has been a strong tradition in our system of parliamentary democracy where the parliament determines it is necessary to impose various laws to regulate the conduct of corporations, be they taxation laws, conduct rules, continuing protection rules, and so on and so forth. We're now living through a period where we have the greatest concentration of corporate power in the fewest possible hands. I'm talking here most directly about the concentration of power inside the big technology companies. But it has been the same for resources organisations and banking organisations. They have had, over the years, a very strong concentration of power. So, when you look at the best way to manage that, I think it's very important to apply principles. I personally am a subscriber to the Menzian form of liberalism, which dictates that you should have the minimal amount of government regulation in order to promote private investment and private capital coming into the market.

Now, here are a couple of the key facts when you look at the resources sector or any major part of the Australian economy. I always start with the fact that we don't have enough money to run this country. We never have had, and that is why we have relied so heavily upon foreign capital for the past 250 years. As far as I can see, there are no pools of domestic capital which are going to come to our rescue and fund these major resources projects. Certainly, the major pools of capital which it may have been possible to use for this purpose can't be used, because the superannuation funds have a sole-purpose test. They are only allowed to invest for the purposes of their members' retirement savings, and whatever you may think about that scheme, that is, I think, a sound principle which should not be pierced at any time in the future.

But it is, therefore, the foreign investors that will be required to fund these projects, and I note that there are great debates about the use of fossil fuels. I think there is no doubt that there will be a need to use gas in the future for many decades, and whether you look at the view of the scientists, the chief scientists and the former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel or whether you look at the major investors like Larry Fink of BlackRock, everyone is of the view that in the short to medium term there is going to be a need for gas. So the idea that we're not going to have any more gas means that we're not going to have any more electricity or any more lights on in Australia, which is very worrying; it's very concerning.

So we are where we are; we need to get the gas out of the ground. There will be a need to fund that activity and, as far as I can see, there is no domestic pool of capital which is going to allow that to happen, and that's where the foreign capital comes in, and we need to send the right signals to the market that we're not going to engage in undue sovereign risk. Certainly, we have seen this movie before. We saw Mr Connor and his attempts to try to engage in some kind of quasi-nationalisation of resource assets in the 1970s, which led to what was, I think, 15 per cent inflation and a major economic catastrophe which had to be resolved with various measures.

So we have seen this movie before. I don't think we want to go back to that particular period, so we need to send the right signals that we as a country want to have that foreign investment. We want to have that foreign investment on the right basis. We will certainly be imposing conditions on corporate activity in Australia, and I think there is a case to be made for some of these organisations to pay more tax. Certainly, my former profession of accounting has done some good things for humanity, I'm sure. But it has also done some rather evil things, and I think that transfer pricing, which has led to the base erosion and profit shifting where, effectively, companies have been able to establish a mining organisation in Singapore, is frankly outrageous. I don't know that there are that many mines in Singapore or many more resources projects in Singapore, but certainly they are managing to pay a very low rate of corporate tax in Singapore on the back of their significant projects that are being undertaken in Australia.

Now, I'm for lower taxes and I think it's great that Singapore has been able to cut taxes, and I wish that we could have a similar trajectory here in Australia. I note that the UK is now looking to reverse its misguided policy of raising corporate taxes, and we look forward to the UK heading back to a corporate tax rate which I think is going to be 19. So we should be seeking to compete with Singapore, as well as addressing the major issue of base erosion and profit shifting, which is the mechanism by which the resources companies have been able to fleece Australian taxpayers of taxation revenue. I think there are certainly areas here that have been raised by the crossbench that are worthy of further consideration, certainly in terms of the tax burden that is placed on some of these foreign multinationals. As I say, we need to do it in a way which is not going to spook foreign investors, but certainly we can do it in a way which is at least going to have a better return to the Australian taxpayers.

I would say that there are some laudable objectives here, and I think it's good we have an opportunity to raise some issues that are not the issues of the government of the day, and that's what we're here to do as a Senate. I am pleased to make a second contribution on this bill after making a contribution on it in the last parliament. I would summarise my comments here by really reminding the Senate that it is very important that we are cognisant of the fact that we don't have enough domestic capital to fund these major projects.

For people that believe these projects do need to be financed, that finance needs to come from somewhere. There is no domestic pool of capital that is going to be able to meet this investment need, so therefore we need to send the right signals to the global capital markets that we are a stable democracy that has reasonable corporate laws that are clearly understood and that don't have terms which are not easily understood or are too broad. In the case of this bill I think there is no doubt that the benefit to the Australian community test would be a very, very broad test. It would be hard for a court of law to define what that is. As a legislator, I don't think it is our role to handpass our role to the courts down the road and let them effectively become a quasi-legislature. That is our role. If people want to put a more specific concept on the table, they should do that. That's the first one. We don't want to spook foreign investors; we need to have clear corporate laws.

The second point I want to summarise is that in terms of taxation—this is not a tax bill, I should note—I think there is a very strong case for some of these foreign multinationals to pay more tax. I regret very much that my former colleagues in the accounting profession have done so much damage to our taxation revenue collection system by devising these schemes. I do think that it's going to be difficult for us to resolve the base erosion and profit shifting issues without some sort of coordinated effort with other like-minded countries, and I'm sure that we can do that in the years ahead. As I say, I think there are some laudable objectives here, but we need to do a bit more work on it.

Senator COX (Western Australia) (11:07): I rise to make my contribution to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 on behalf of the Greens. The bill is a very simple one. It inserts a new object into the act which will ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community. One Nation claims that this bill will fix the offshore gas issue, and that the government and the Australian community don't profit enough from these projects. Whilst the Greens agree that the fossil fuel companies don't pay their fair share of tax, we know that the problem goes further than this. We also know that this bill is being worded too broadly to actually give its desired effect.

The Greens believe that if we truly want to benefit the Australian community, these gas and oil reserves are best left in the ground. There is no other option to do that. We should be leaving it there because we now need to transition to renewable energy sources. This applies to offshore projects, which this bill relates to, but onshore projects as well, as Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined. We are in a climate crisis, and the science could not be any clearer. No new fossil fuel projects should be approved, opened or expanded. Not one, and definitely not the 114 that are currently in the pipeline.

It's really not that hard to understand, but it appears the major parties are still struggling, in particular, when the global markets indicate differently. They are telling us that the customer wants cleaner, greener energy sources. From the perspective of trade, and from mine as the Australian Greens spokesperson for trade, we know that 65 per cent of this gas actually goes offshore. It goes through the trade that we export to other nations around the world. We need to make sure that we actually create that certainty for investors and the public with that environmental and social governance legislation regulation that is required. It is already in the EU, it is already in the US and it is already in the UK, so we need that here. We must do that to make sure that the customer at the other end of the pipeline is happy with that greener, cleaner resource that we trade with them.

We need to think about the benefits not just in terms of money, but in terms of what that drilling of dirty gas brings to our future generations? What message does that continuation of those fossil fuel projects say to them? We know what that is because of the case where those brave kids who tried to prove that the federal government had a duty of care. The government claimed they didn't have a duty of care to protect future generations from the impacts of climate change. Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined this, but this is about the assessment of those fossil fuel projects. These kids were initially successful, but had their hope ripped away from them when the then environment minister, Sussan Ley, now in the opposition, spent taxpayer money appealing this case. I mean, what benefit does exploitation of gas and oil accelerating the climate crisis bring to them? It's the legacy that we are passing on.

Even though in this place those opposite will argue that scope 3 emissions don't matter, what we know is that these will benefit the rest of the global community—in particular small island nations already feeling the effects of climate change—and we think we've done the least to contribute that. But in the Torres Strait Islands, in that landmark case last week in the UN Human Rights Commission—which they've won—they argued that actually article 27, the right to culture, and article 17, the right to free and arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home, were proven because we are not caring about the impact of these offshore gas projects on other nations.

What are the benefits to our oceans that are becoming more acidic, our unique wildlife, our reefs that are dying and the cultural heritage of our First Nations people? I'm glad Senator Pocock mentioned the Munupi clan of the Tiwi Islands, which I had the privilege to sit with on country and listen to their evidence. We need to think about whose land, sea and sky country this is, and what the impact is on those people. We cannot continue to ignore the voice of First Nations people at every step, right through to rehabilitation. We also cannot ignore First Nation businesses that need to be involved in this. We can't ignore First Nations indigenous knowledge and science, and they must be incorporated in all of this.

This bill specifically deals with offshore projects, which are all happening on unceded sea country that traditional owners have not provided their free, prior and informed consent to. On top of that we need to legislate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which authorises us to be able to provide that free, prior and informed consent. But for over 200 years our voices have been ignored, our culture is continually being destroyed in this country, and if the government really wants to give First Nations people a voice, this bill does not require a referendum, and it will have an immediate impact on acknowledging our sovereignty.

With gas being the largest polluter in Australia—it's as dirty as coal and it's overwhelming that, like coal, the majority of the gas is extracted in Australia and, as I said, exported. It is not for domestic use. That is a myth. It's one of the biggest myths that is being bandied around in this place and throughout the media to the Australian public. It is the case because huge amounts of energy—dirty energy—is needed to extract and process that gas into liquid so that it can be exported. They're burning that. The Global Methane Pledge says that, so we have to listen to the science.

PRRT is a huge issue. We need to crack down on tax avoidance in Australia, and big companies need to pay their fair share as Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined. And I'm glad to hear Senator Bragg and others in this place have been part of the previous Senate inquiries into PRRT. This is about making sure they pay their fair share of rent in this country. As Senator Whish-Wilson said, there is no other business in Australia or globally that gets its resources for free and sells them on for profit—and yet this is what's happening in this country with these gas companies. We have to make sure also that these companies are not a revolving door for ministers. They grant leases and exemptions and funding for these companies to continue the climate-wrecking projects that they once rolled out into their cushy jobs with the same companies.

We know that the major parties have the strong hold—I'm so glad to see us united on the crossbench—but it's really no surprise that they're against any attempt to ensure that corporates in this country pay their fair share of tax. These companies are eroding democracy—Senator David Pocock talked about state capture and the importance of our democracy—are destroying our planet and are wrecking the cultural of First Nations people around the country. Unfortunately, the governments in this place have been letting them do that. They are letting them continue to do that because they're too scared to stand up to them and do what the public actually wants them to do, enact change and say no to new fossil fuel projects. This is happening from the Barossa to the Beetaloo to Narrabri and to Scarborough in my home state. We need change and we need it now.

What we have to do is make sure that in the PRRT changes—the Australian Taxation Office has already named those gas companies, and Chevron is one of them, as systemic nonpayers of tax, despite Australia's gas exporters earning more than $50 billion in exports. The tax office says that they don't expect any significant revenue to be paid under the existing tax system until the mid-2030s. That is unreal. In 2017 Shell admitted that they would never pay PRRT, especially on their 25 per cent share of the Gorgon project.

The last election was very clear in its message. The Australian public wants meaningful change on climate change action, and we emphasise 'meaningful'. I'd like to take this chance to remind the government, yet again, that we are not seeking just to reduce climate emissions by 43 per cent. We now need to be ambitious and reduce them by 75 per cent. We cannot keep opening new fossil fuel projects. You cannot claim to care for the environment by supporting climate- and environmental-wrecking projects like Beetaloo and Barossa, and you cannot claim to care for First Nations people and their voice while you're ignoring their opposition to drilling in their sea country, fracking on their country and removing their sacred rock art. You cannot do that.

Whilst the Greens support this bill in principle, we do not support One Nation's move to prevent members from contributing in the second reading debate. Mine is being cut short. This is the place of debate, and we shouldn't be trying to gag that.

Senator Scarr: You guys did it in the last sitting.

Se nator COX: Sorry?

Senator Scarr: You gagged debate in the last sitting.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): Excuse me, Senator Cox, continue your contribution through the—

Senator COX: Hang on, has Senator Scarr got a contribution?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please continue your contribution through the chair. Thank you, Senator Cox.

Senator COX: Yes. Thank you. Can I seek leave to make my further comments?

The A CTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You still have time for contribution.

Senator COX: The Greens are proposing a second reading amendment, which has been circulated. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) is of the opinion that:

(i) Australia's offshore oil and gas industry is a large contributor to climate change, and

(ii) it is to the benefit of the Australian community that no new fossil fuel projects are opened; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) introduce a 10% Commonwealth royalty for gas extraction, creditable against the petroleum resource rent tax, and

(ii) end all public subsidies of coal, oil and gas, and

(iii) implement a long-term solution to ensure industry covers the full cost of offshore decommissioning, informed by overseas models that are underpinned by transparency and accountability".

Thank you.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cox. You're seeking leave to move your second reading amendment, as circulated, on page 1611.

Senator COX: Yes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:19): I move:

That the question be now put.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cox and circulated on sheet 1661 be agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ) (11:28): The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:32): The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was forced to extend its inquiry by 12 months in April, partly because it had trouble getting important information out of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence. Commissioner Nick Kaldas was asked about it in an ABC interview with Patricia Karvelas last month, and it's worth documenting his response. Patricia referenced the DVA and Defence delays and asked, 'Has information been more forthcoming over the past few months since the inquiry was extended?' Commissioner Kaldas replied: 'Not as yet. We're still waiting for some things to be resolved.' Patricia Karvelas said: 'I consider that—please correct me if I'm wrong—quite alarming. You're a royal commission. Does it concern you that you're a royal commission with royal commission powers and that you've found it so difficult?' The commissioner told it to her straight: 'Yes, it does.'

The Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 addresses one of the biggest barriers stopping the royal commission from doing its job: parliamentary privilege. I don't move it lightly. Parliamentary privilege has protected the same witnesses and whistleblowers who fought so hard to get this royal commission established in the first place. It protects people who have come to me and told me the most horrific things going on in Defence. It gave me the power to fight for them. But the Parliamentary Privileges Act isn't working well when it comes to the royal commissions. It gets in the way when those royal commissions need to examine the actions of government. Instead of protecting people with no power, it's shielding people in power from scrutiny. That's why the veteran suicide royal commissions hit road blocks. They royal commission wants to ask the hard questions. They want to bring in Defence officials and officials from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and drill down on them. And so they should. That is why we are having a royal commission: to find answers. It's what we set them up to do, but they don't do it. Don't take it from me; take it from the royal commission itself. The interim report says that privilege:

… impedes transparency surrounding government decisions and acts as a shield for the executive from accountability for their commitments and actions taken to implement matters subject to privilege.

That's because parliamentary privilege prevents courts and tribunals, including royal commissions, from drawing inferences or conclusions from a report or inquiry that is subject to its protection. That's why the royal commission says it can't inquire into work and outcomes of prior Senate inquiries and Auditor-General reports—of all things!—even though its terms of reference require it to do so.

The royal commission can't tender documents subject to privilege and draw conclusions from them. This is ridiculous. It can't ask witnesses who worked on audits of Defence and DVA programs to give evidence about their investigation—not if it wants to use that evidence to make any meaningful findings, anyway. If it wants to use evidence that's subject to privilege in its findings, the only way to do that is to redraw that evidence from witnesses. It has to redo the work that is already done, and it has to rerun the inquiry. That is absolutely pointless. Why would we put people through this again and again? It has to tiptoe around everything we've done in parliament up to this point. All that work that's come before, all the work we did in the Senate—the royal commission can't use it to come to any conclusion about what the government has been up to all these years. It's such a terrible waste.

Take what happened with the 2021 Auditor-General report into the successes and failures of culture reform strategies in Defence. The report matters to the royal commission. It made a number of recommendations on how to improve the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian Defence Force members. Defence's response to the audit is relevant to the terms of reference of the royal commission's inquiry. It's publicly available on ANAO's website and has probably been downloaded thousands and thousands of times. But the royal commission, of all things, hasn't been able to use the report in any meaningful way. Counsel assisting the royal commission found that parliamentary privilege prevents them from asking Defence representatives questions about the report, because they can't make any kind of finding or conclusion from evidence that's subject to privilege. They wanted to show parts of the report on screens at one of the royal commission's public hearings. They wanted to tender it and refer to it in questioning, but parliamentary privilege prevented them from doing so. The risk of being accused of making findings from protected information was too great. They had to make clear that the royal commissioners should not make any conclusions or findings based on the Auditor-General's work—all that work, and it's absolutely useless to them. The counsel assisting the royal commission make it through by looking for official documents that were published outside the parliament and that reference the findings and outcomes of inquiry reports. How ridiculous. What a waste of time, when the reports are sitting there ready to go in their hot little hands.

In one case, they were lucky enough to find an official document outlining the recommendations and government responses to the 2017 Senate inquiry report The constant battle: Suicide by veterans. They use this document instead of the report itself. They had to, to get people into the witness box and to look at what the Australian Government did in response to the inquiry's recommendations. It worked then, but it's not sustainable—not by a long shot. We've had 17 reviews in 17 years in the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself. I don't know how many times Defence has been through the audit office on different things associated with their personnel. This is absolutely ridiculous. All this work has been done up here, and they are prevented from using it. It is as simple as that. Instead, they've got to go through it paper by paper to see what's in that. That is not a good way of doing an investigation and it is not sustainable—not by a long shot. We can't have a situation where it comes down to pure luck as to whether the royal commission can get to the evidence it needs to meet its terms of reference.

This royal commission has been a hard won by thousands of veterans and their families. They knew it was our only shot to call out the terrible phase of government that led to hundreds of veterans taking their lives. There is nothing higher than a royal commission. We have nowhere else to go. This is the pinnacle for us. Even here, in an inquiry with the strongest investigative powers you can imagine, we see how far executive government will go to avoid transparency and accountability. It just goes to show how hard it is to get to the bottom of the terrible problems at Defence and Veterans' Affairs.

That's why we are moving to enact recommendation 7 of the royal commission's interim report. The provisions of this bill follow the royal commission's recommendation precisely to exempt royal commissions from section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act where their terms of reference require examination of government—exactly what the royal commission asked for. I know it's a serious thing to open up an exemption to privilege, but, seriously, there is no other way around this. Trust me, we are pulling our hair out in my office. If royal commissions say they have a problem, then they have a problem, and we need to fix it so they can get on with the job. I thought that's what we're here to do, not to stand here as obstructionists so they can't get their job done. We certainly can't ignore what they are telling us. We have got to find a way to make sure Commissioner Kaldas and the other commissioners can turn over every stone, every rock, and get to the bottom of what is going so terribly wrong in Defence and Veterans' Affairs, and why we have so many suicides in our military. It's not a hard ask.

Senator Tyrrell and I will talk to anyone and everyone about how to fix the problems the royal commission has found. This is why I hope to send this bill to an inquiry. It will be a quick inquiry because it will need the best legal minds out there to be there so we can thrash out the issues the royal commission has raised. We've got to act now and we've got to act fast. Time is not on a veteran's side, I can assure you, when it comes to the royal commission. The sooner the royal commission can get its job done, the sooner we can get it wrapped up and the sooner, hopefully, we will have fewer people out there who have served their country trying to take their lives. That is the whole purpose of having the royal commission.

The royal commission has been too hard won for us to stuff it up now. All those people who rocked up on cold mornings to protest; the mums who came to parliament to tell the PM about their sons they had lost; the brave soldiers and veterans who have stood up and given evidence, even though it hurts and even though it takes them back to a dark place; everyone we have lost; our veterans and our Defence personnel are relying on making this royal commission a success and to find the answers that we need. This has to be our last inquiry into veteran suicides. It has to be. Like I said, after 17 inquiries in 17 years, we can't go through any more. We can't keep reliving our stories and watching the failure of future governments to fix these issues.

I call on Labor today to take this seriously. Come to the table and help us figure this out. You helped us win this fight, and veterans haven't forgotten that, but now you're in government and you're responsible for making sure this inquiry, hopefully the last inquiry we will ever have, works. You are now in government. Yes, that means hard decisions, and yes, that means upsetting some of the applecart here. I am asking you to be brave because sometimes we have to be that way in life to get things done. It is up to Labor now to make this happen, but, like I said, it is extremely time sensitive. There is nothing else I have up my sleeve and nothing anybody else can tell me that is higher than a royal commission to slow down these veteran suicides. I am very clear that we can never stop veteran suicides. But, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, if we do this properly we can sure as hell reduce them. We have one chance at this. This is our last one. I'm asking you: give the royal commission everything it needs, because I need somebody else to come up with the answers because I've run out.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:45): I, too, rise today to speak to the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. This bill before us today raises issues fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. In the first instance, can I recognise the passion shown by Senator Lambie and her commitment to veterans throughout Australia.

The amendment arises from the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report. You will recall that the royal commission was set up by the former coalition government in 2021. Its clear intent was to reduce deaths by suicide within our veterans community. I think, without a doubt, we'd all agree the death of any ADF member or veteran is tragic and is deeply felt by the entire community.

In the 2021-22 budget the former coalition government provided $174 million to fund the royal commission and examine the systemic issues surrounding death by suicide of veterans. There is no doubt the royal commission provided very clear acknowledgement of the issues involved. I think it was an extremely important process for the families of our defence veterans and, indeed, part of the healing process for some families. That process, to share their stories and experiences, while extremely distressing, will be of enormous value to all future members of our defence forces. I pay tribute to those who were involved in this way. We know this is a highly sensitive and complex issue, and that there are deep emotional scars that relate to these issues.

The interim royal commission report was tough reading but the coalition was prepared for this. Our commitment to serving Australian Defence Force members and veterans was sacrosanct and required no stone left unturned to address defence and veteran suicide. Our support for Australian veterans and their families was in recognition of the service and sacrifice they have made to keep our nation safe and secure.

The bill before us deals with the issue of parliamentary privilege, arising from one of the recommendations in the royal commission interim report. As we know, in this place parliamentary privilege refers to special legal rights and immunities which apply to each house of parliament, its committees and members, and is a fundamental part and process of what we do here. We are given a special legal status because it is recognised there are tasks performed here that require additional powers and protections. Special rights and immunities are necessary because of the functions in this place. For example, we need to be able to debate matters of importance freely, to discuss grievances and to conduct investigations effectively without interference.

Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that, until declared by the parliament, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the members and committees of each house, shall be those of the British House of Commons at the time of Federation—being 1901. It was not until 1987, following a thorough review of the whole subject by a joint select committee, that the Commonwealth parliament passed comprehensive legislation in this area. The Parliamentary Privileges Act described the proceedings in parliament to which privilege will apply as:

… all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee …

It includes but is not limited to:

(a) the giving of evidence before a House or a committee, and evidence so given;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to a House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; and

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of a House or a committee and the document so formulated, made or published.

The act prevents this royal commission from receiving or tendering evidence of the nature that I have just described for the purpose of: (a) questioning or relying on the truth, motive intention or good faith of anything forming part of those proceedings in parliament; (b) questioning or establishing the credibility, motive, intention or good faith of any person; (c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, interferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in parliament; or (d) going beyond providing an occurrence of events in parliament, including what was said in the course of parliamentary proceedings.

The privilege of freedom of speech is often described as the most important of all privileges. Its origins date from the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Article 9 of the bill of rights provides:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

As this was one of the privileges of the House of Commons in 1901 it was inherited by the House and the Senate under the terms of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act preserves the application of the traditional expression of this privilege but spells out in some detail just what may be covered by the term 'proceedings in parliament'. The practical effect of this is that those taking part in proceedings in parliament enjoy absolute privilege. It is well known that members may not be sued if they make defamatory statements when taking part in debates in a house. But the privilege is wider than that and, for instance, protects members from being prosecuted if, in a debate, they make a statement that would otherwise be a criminal offence. The privilege of freedom of speech has been described as a privilege of necessity. It enables members and senators to raise matters they would not otherwise be able to bring forward, at least not without fear of the legal consequences. The privilege is thus a very, very great one, and it is recognised that it carries with it a corresponding obligation that it should always be used responsibly.

The privilege of freedom of speech is not limited to members and senators in the parliament. It also applies to others taking part in proceedings in parliament. The most obvious examples of others who may enjoy absolute privilege are witnesses who give evidence to committees.

Parliamentary privilege provides parliamentarians in both houses of parliament with freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament. It does so by preventing courts and tribunals from interfering in these matters. As such, it upholds the separation of powers doctrine within the Australian Constitution.

Parliamentary privilege extends to royal commissions because they are included in the definition of tribunals. The proposed amendment to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 would mean royal commissions and other tribunals could have evidence tendered or received; ask questions of statements, submissionsor comments made concerning proceedings in parliament for the purpose of drawing, or inviting the drawing of inferences, or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in the parliament. Royal commissions already have extraordinary powers which go far beyond the powers of a criminal court. The ancient rights of parliamentary privilege must be preserved so proceedings of the parliament can be carried out without hesitation.

Members of parliament, witnesses before committees and the reports of committees are subject to parliamentary privilege to ensure the parliament can access all information required for its deliberation and processes. This protection is important to ensure that those participating in parliamentary processes can engage without hesitation, and it ensures the primacy of the parliament in our democracy. On that basis, the coalition will not be supporting the bill.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (11:55): I'm pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 on behalf of the Labor government. I too would like to acknowledge Senator Lambie's deep commitment to the scourge of suicide in the ADF and the veterans community and her advocacy and support for that community. The death by suicide of any Australian is a tragedy, and it is a sorry fact that the rate of suicide among veterans of the Australian Defence Force is significantly higher than that across the broader Australian community. This country has lost more serving and former ADF personnel to suicide than it has in operations over 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

ADF members, veterans and their families are right to demand that this crisis be addressed. That is why, when in opposition, Labor joined with families who had lost loved ones to this crisis to call for the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The former government resisted taking that step for quite some time, but Labor thought the need for this commission was obvious and absolutely compelling. We strongly supported its establishment, and we continue to support its work.

Labor welcomed the royal commission's interim report, and we released that report on 11 August 2022, immediately after we received it from the commission. We wanted the commission's recommendations to be able to be considered publicly at the earliest opportunity. The government has been closely considering the recommendations made by the royal commission in its interim report. We will, this very afternoon, release its formal response to each and every one of those recommendations to the parliament and to the public and indicate how the government proposes to address those recommendations. The defence and veterans communities, the royal commission, the parliament and the Australian public are entitled to see the government respond to the full swathe of recommendations made by the royal commission.

At this moment, I will not pre-empt that formal response by the government. However, I would like to make some brief observations about the bill that Senator Lambie has brought before the Senate. This bill deals with one particular recommendation in the royal commission's interim report. Recommendation 7 of the interim report recommends:

Where their terms of reference require an examination of government, Royal Commissions should be made exempt from section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth).

Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental feature of our democratic system and of our parliamentary tradition. Section 16 of the modern Parliamentary Privileges Act descends from article 9 of the UK Bill of Rights 1689, which declares:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

This principle is important not because it's very old but because it is essential, even today. None of us in this place could do our work, represent our communities or serve the country as parliamentarians without the proper and appropriate protection that is provided by parliamentary privilege.

As Senator Lambie noted in her second reading speech on this bill on 7 September 2022, it is parliamentary privilege that protects whistleblowers who wish to raise matters, including those that are the subject of this royal commission. It is parliamentary privilege that ultimately protects us, as parliamentarians, when we seek to advocate on behalf of the vulnerable, to take on powerful vested interests and to shine a light in some very dark places. Senator Lambie also says that parliamentary privilege should not stand in the way of the proper role of a royal commission. And I agree. I want to note, in respect of that, that the particular protection given to proceedings in parliament, the subject of section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act and of this bill, is quite confined, and that provision reads:

(3) In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of:

…   …   …

(c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has considered the effect this provision may have on a royal commission. The Law Reform Commission noted in a 2009 report:

The privilege of freedom of speech may prevent Royal Commissions or the—

recommended—

Official Inquiries from investigating allegations of misconduct made in Parliament. In practice, however, a number of inquiries have investigated such claims or conducted investigations touching on the proceedings of Parliament. Although courts have differed on this issue, it appears that Royal Commissions or Official Inquiries will infringe parliamentary privilege if they inquire into the motives, intentions or truthfulness of a speaker in Parliament, or allow witnesses to be cross-examined in relation to words spoken or documents tabled in Parliament.

In considering this present bill it is important to note, again, as Senator Lambie has already done in her second reading speech, that privilege does not prevent a royal commission from using the proceedings of parliament for other purposes that might be, for example, as background material or to establish matters of fact. Importantly, again, as Senator Lambie noted, it does not prevent a royal commission from obtaining its own evidence on matters put before parliament, for instance, by seeking evidence from witnesses who have previously given evidence to parliamentary inquiries.

Royal commissions are very serious affairs, and this royal commission, in particular, is conducting an inquiry into an issue of the utmost seriousness for our country. We must make sure that both royal commissions and the parliament are able to do their work. As I've said, this government will be formally responding to the recommendations made by the royal commission and its interim report this afternoon. We will work with Senator Lambie, and indeed all senators, in addressing those recommendations and doing what we must to tackle the crisis of suicide in the defence and veterans community. Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:03): I rise to speak to Senator Lambie's Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commissions Response) Bill 2022.

The DEPUTY PRESI DENT: Sorry, Senator, leave was sought to continue the remarks, therefore it becomes a technical adjournment. That's why, with respect, I looked at you. My apologies for not explaining.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: My apologies. I would just seek to make a brief contribution on the bill. I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I rise to speak briefly to the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this bill to the Senate in such a timely fashion. All of us in this chamber, in our work with constituents, particularly veterans, have seen the impact of veteran suicides not only on the Defence Force but on other veterans, on their families and on the broader defence community. It has been genuinely shocking for me to see the lack of care and the systemic failures in dealing with veterans in the short time that I have been the Greens spokesperson for veterans affairs.

I have said before and I will say again: I don't hold the current government responsible for the mess that the system is in but I do hold the government responsible for navigating the way through and fixing the system, and for doing it with the degree of urgency that the interim report has shown is needed. One of the key problems, though, that we saw from the interim report has been the way in which the royal commission under very effective leadership has not had the ability to look in detail and then draw inferences and conclusions from a series of parliamentary committee reports, Auditor-General reports, government reports and government responses. It is in response to those very real practical concerns that we saw recommendation 7 of the interim report released to the parliament. Recommendation 7 reads:

Provide exemption from parliamentary privilege Where their terms of reference require an examination of government, Royal Commissions should be made exempt from section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth).

The royal commission made this recommendation because parliamentary privilege in the broader sense had been prohibiting the royal commission from drawing the conclusions or inferences from previous reports created by parliamentary committees tabled in parliament, or as part of the broader parliamentary business. The royal commission said:

A number of other reports prepared by the Auditor-General as well as the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade are directly relevant to our work. These reports are subject to privilege, meaning we cannot draw inferences or conclusions from them.

The royal commission went on to say how this directly impeded its work. saying:

This leaves us unable to inquire into the work and outcomes of prior critical reports—it hampers our ability to learn from that which came before. This risks an unnecessary duplication of effort. It impedes transparency surrounding government decisions and acts as a shield for the executive from accountability for their commitments and actions taken to implement matters subject to privilege.

I stop there to remind the Senate that the royal commission is inquiring into defence and veteran suicide. As has been commented on in this debate and outside, our defence forces have lost more personnel through suicide than in all of the armed conflicts they have been involved in, from Iraq to Afghanistan and onward. That is a chilling reminder of the importance of this work. And to see that the royal commission has been hampered in that work places an obligation on us to see what we can do to remedy that.

This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Privileges Act but in a very broad way, by adopting the wording of the recommendations, and I acknowledge Senator Lambie has done that. It does it by removing the limitation in 16(3)(c) of the act that prohibits the drawing inferences from 'anything forming proceedings in parliament'. That is potentially broader than is needed to deal with the concerns raised in the interim report, which are really limited to reports, to responses and those kinds of formal exchanges of documentation.

There is a series of reports, not least the DLA Piper report, as we were discussing earlier, Auditor-General reports, committee reports that should be in front of this royal commission, not just to note but to have a look at some of the structural failures—and not just structural failures in defence but structural failures in this place—that have seen these reports tabled but no action taken. That has been one of the core limitations, if you read in detail chapter 6 of the interim report. Addressing that is important to veterans, but doing it in a way that respects and promotes parliamentary privilege is the real challenge. There is area to explore in narrowing the scope of this bill, potentially a short, sharp inquiry to take relevant submissions to get the balance right. On balance, I will finish by reading the two sides of the argument. I read again from the interim report, paragraph 41 onwards:

We acknowledge the customary importance of parliamentary privilege to ensure that the parliament can debate and investigate matters of public importance effectively and without interference. But for a Royal Commission tasked with investigating systemic issues contributing to suicide—the origins of which may be the action or inaction of government and departments which have been subject to numerous prior reviews—privilege has hindered our work.Our terms of reference require us to consider 'the findings and recommendations of previous relevant reports and inquiries … including any assessment of the adequacy and extent of implementation of those recommendations'. In this Royal Commission, parliamentary privilege extends to a number of reports prepared for, or by, parliamentary committees which consider the same matters or matters directly relevant to our terms of reference.

We are concerned that parliamentary privilege is not limited to tendering documents or asking questions that might make or imply a conclusion about a decision of parliament. Privilege extends to inviting the drawing of any inferences or conclusions from part of a report or inquiry, even if that inference would not impinge on parliament or any of its members.

That is what is frustrating the royal commission, and you can understand why.

Again, we come back to this, the importance of parliamentary privilege, and I say this from the position of a party that does not have majority. I acknowledge, as well, independents. Parliamentary privilege is essential for whistleblowers to know they have protection when they come to us. It's important for us to be able to hold powerful corporations and interests to account. It's important and essential for us to do the work, and Odgers' indicates that. Odgers', in its Australian Senate Practice, says this in relation to privilege, and particularly focusing on the Senate:

The law of parliamentary privilege is particularly important so far as the Senate is concerned, because it is the foundation of the Senate's ability to perform its legislative functions with the appropriate degree of independence of the House of Representatives and of the executive government which usually controls that House.

Parliamentary privilege exists for the purpose of enabling the Senate effectively to carry out its functions. The primary functions of the Senate are to inquire, to debate and to legislate, and any analysis of parliamentary privilege must be related to the way in which it assists and protects those functions. Although the relevant law is the same for both Houses, and is analysed accordingly in this chapter, its particular significance for the Senate must constantly be borne in mind.

Our party is very aware of how essential parliamentary privilege is, and adopts in whole that observation in Odgers'. We do, however, commend Senator Lambie for bringing on this bill, and we do think that there is a powerful argument to explore it in detail, in a brief committee inquiry, in order to check if we can get that balance right. And we don't have forever to wait. This royal commission's time is running out. Veterans can't wait. If we are going to do this, we should act with some haste.

Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:12): I rise to speak in relation to this private members' bill, the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I am speaking against it, but I want to make some very clear preliminary comments. The first is that I have the utmost and greatest respect for Senator Lambie in relation to her fearless advocacy on behalf of veterans and their families in relation to this subject matter. I've said that in this place before, I've said that outside of this place before and I will say it to people when I cease to be sitting in this place. Senator Lambie, you really should be congratulated, through you, Deputy President, for your fearless advocacy in this area.

The second point I want to make is, when reading the interim report from the commissioners, one can sense the palpable frustration that they have in relation to how the exercise of parliamentary privilege is, in their view, acting as an obstacle with respect to the discharge of their responsibilities. Indeed, in the letters patent which established the royal commission there is an obligation upon the royal commissioners to act expeditiously, to conduct the inquiry as quickly as they can. The particular document, or one of the documents they were seeking to interrogate in particular, was an Auditor-General report with respect to the culture in the Defence Force. They're frustrated as they feel as if they're being impeded by the operation of parliamentary privilege in that respect.

However, parliamentary privilege is an absolute foundational building block of the institution of the Australian parliament. It is a fundamental building block. And while I heard Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution, talk about a quick inquiry to see if there is a workaround et cetera, this is not something that should be abandoned quickly or changed quickly in the concern that we should try and assist the commissioner's report. This is a really important issue and we need to tread extremely carefully in relation to this matter, and I'm going to expand on that during the course of my remarks.

Yesterday in this place I actually dove into the development of parliamentary privilege in our Westminster system, the development of the Bill of Rights in 1689 and what actually led up to the Bill of Rights in 1689 in the United Kingdom, which forms the foundation for the principles of parliamentary privilege. The 17th century in England was a time when there was gross interference with the operation of parliament. Members of parliament were literally put in the Tower of London for expressing views with respect to the arbitrary treatment of citizens, with respect to taxation measures which they considered to be illegal and with respect to criticism of Crown, the monarch and how the monarch operated. Literally, they were arrested after giving speeches in parliament and put into the Tower of London.

That was the whole genesis of the Bill of Rights, which, in article 9, which is the foundation stone of our parliamentary privilege here in Australia, contains:

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings—

or proceedings—

in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

The fundamental purpose of that article 9 of the Bill of Rights, going back to 1689, is to make sure that all of us here in this place and in the House of Representatives, in the course of our committee work, in the course of documents and in the course of submissions which are prepared for the purposes of parliament, is to make sure that none of those proceedings, none of those processes, are capable of being impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament, and, specifically, in terms of our law, under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which I'll get to, that includes royal commissions. That has been a longstanding foundation stone in relation to our system.

Now, I just want to make a few comments in relation to the operation of the royal commission. I had a look at Odgers', and Senator Shoebridge quoted from Odgers' in relation to this matter, and there is very useful information in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, the 14th edition, with respect to the development of parliamentary privilege. I want to quote from page 68:

In 1983 the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies accepted, in the course of its proceedings, that it did not have the power to inquire into statements made in Parliament. The Royal Commissioner inquiring into the Oil-for-Food Program in 2006 went further in warning counsel to familiarise themselves with section 16 of the 1987 Act—

the Parliamentary Privileges Act—

before they tried to question Commonwealth ministers on their parliamentary statements.

It then continues, on page 4 of the latest supplement to Odgers', and this is the important point:

Numerous commissions of inquiry have traversed the same ground as parliamentary committees, and have done so without infringing privilege. For instance, in 2017 the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers recommended that the newly-established Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry consider the evidence published by the committee in the course of its inquiry. While the Royal Commission had access to the information published by the committee—

so the royal commission, in this case, has access to that Auditor-General's report, in particular—

parliamentary privilege limits its use so that, while people could not be directly questioned on their parliamentary evidence—

that is, the evidence in the course of producing the Auditor-General's report—

the commission could use the material—

could use the material—

to develop its own lines of inquiry.

That's the boundary, in terms of the limits on the use of what has been prepared for parliament. With respect to the Auditor-General's report in particular, I cite the article 'Can Parliamentary Privilege be Used to Shut Down Parliamentary Accountability?' by Anne Twomey, who is probably Australia's leading constitutional law professor, and I quote:

The Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament whose performance audit reports are prepared for the purpose of tabling and debate in Parliament and therefore attract parliamentary privilege. The information and analysis in these reports provide crucial support to the Parliament's role of scrutinising the executive in relation to its spending of public moneys.

That report that was referred to by the—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The debate is interrupted. Senator Scarr, you'll be in continuance. The Senate will now proceed to the consideration of government business.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:20): I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Today we are about to see another embarrassing backflip by the Albanese Labor government, as it appears they are about to move amendments that will extend the cashless debit card in Australia. The Labor government have misled the Australian public with promises during the election campaign and, embarrassingly, are now having to admit it was a thoughtless grab for votes.

The amendments we are about to see allow Cape York, the cashless debit card trial sites and those people in the Northern Territory who have voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the cashless debit card to remain on the cashless debit card. This is an admission they messed up this ill-conceived election commitment.

The amendments put forward by the government confirm even they have had to admit that abolishing the cashless debit card is a really stupid idea. They have now provisioned for $50 million to support drug and alcohol support services because they themselves understand the social harm likely to result from the removal of this card from the vulnerable communities and the vulnerable people that so heavily rely on it. Shame on the Labor government for doing what they've done. They left great uncertainty for vulnerable Australians, and, at the eleventh hour, have had to admit to the fact they got it wrong in the first place.

This bill, as I said, seeks to repeal the cashless debit card. In effect, it no longer will because of the amendments. This card was put into communities as an important financial management tool, developed with advanced technology to help improve the lives of some of Australia's most vulnerable people. It's an innovative program designed to tackle social harm, particularly harm associated with drug and alcohol addiction, in communities where there are high rates of long-term welfare dependency.

The coalition have very serious concerns, and have always held very serious concerns, about any legislation that impacts on repealing the cashless debit card, because we understand the impact it's going to have on the communities it's in and on the people in those communities. There are particular concerns about the way this legislation effectively sends vulnerable people back to a restrictive technology like the BasicsCard—but, clearly, the government have worked that out at the eleventh hour.

Really devastatingly, the election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card was made with no consultation. Those opposite will come in here and say the minister has been widely consulting. Consultation occurs before you make the decision, not after you've made the decision. Anybody who thinks what the minister is doing at the moment is consultation needs to get the dictionary out and have a look at what 'consultation' really is.

Firstly, it's important to understand the cashless debit card is one of two methods of delivery of income management in Australia. It's designed to limit spending on harmful things like alcohol, gambling and illicit drugs. Income management has been in place in Australia since 2007. Until the cashless debit card was developed, the only way people were able to undertake an EFTPOS transaction was by using the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard is a standalone technology that can only be used in about 15½ thousand places. These outlets are designated and have to be approved by government. The limited number of outlets that accept the card makes its use highly restrictive for the participants who rely on it.

In recognition of this, the cashless debit card was developed as a new, approved, advanced technology for the delivery of income management, operating using existing banking infrastructure. CDC cardholders are able to use their card at around a million places across the country that have an EFTPOS facility as well as online and internationally. The program is supported with an overall suite of measures implemented to improve community safety, stabilise people's lives and help them to become job ready. This includes a $30 job fund and job-ready initiative and $50 million for drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation facilities.

Significantly, the development of the CDC program was a direct response to calls from community leaders. In South Australia, my home state, the South Australian coroner handed down an absolutely devastating and heartbreaking report called Sleeping rough, on the deaths of six people on the far west coast of South Australia. The study found that unsuccessful efforts to curb alcohol abuse were having devastating impacts on individuals, their families and the community. Indigenous community leaders approached the government for support and worked with the government to establish and design a program to assist communities to address the social-harm implications of alcohol and substance addiction and long-term welfare dependency.

The continuation of the CDC program in 2020 was also as a direct response to calls from these community leaders, who told us that the card was working in their community. The continuation of the cashless debit card was passed to enable income management recipients in the Northern Territory to voluntarily transition onto the cashless debit card. Nearly 4½ thousand people in the Northern Territory have made their own decision to move to the cashless debit card. That's why it is so concerning that this legislation seeks to repeal the cashless debit card in the communities who directly rely on its support. Evidence given during the hearings showed that the bill confirmed that the government's intention to extend income management via the BasicsCard and through existing instruments was fundamentally flawed.

We are yet to see whether this government is intending to extend those instruments, which expire at midnight on Friday night. That in effect means they will be extending income management in the Northern Territory while at the same time trying to abolish income management in other places around Australia. They need to answer the question of why people in the Northern Territory are being treated differently from people in the other trial sites around the country.

The other thing is that we know the cashless debit card is a really advanced piece of technology. As I said, it works in just about every outlet in Australia, online and internationally, as opposed to the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard is also associated with a massive degree of stigmatisation, because the individual needs to be identified by the cashier. The cashless debit card does not identify the individual—unless, of course, that individual seeks to buy a product that has been banned. Despite this, the Albanese Labor government has sought to tick and flick an election commitment with no regard whatsoever for the impact on vulnerable people and vulnerable communities.

But, as I said, the most disappointing aspect of this bill is that it does not have the support of community elders where the CDC program operates. These communities support the program. They supported the extension of the program back in 2020 and they continue to support the program in their communities. The community inquiry into the bill highlighted that the government has clearly failed to consult with these communities, particularly the Indigenous communities in which it operates. The evidence given by Indigenous Australian Noel Pearson, the founder and director of the strategy for the Cape York Partnership, was very compelling, when he emotively said at the inquiry, 'I think this legislation will wipe out 20 years of my work.' He said:

in the absence of a solution that had the same functionality as the cashless debit card, our Family Responsibilities Commission and the welfare reform work that we've done via that over the last 20 years will collapse, and that would be a very bad thing. We'd just have to give up. We would come to the point of just giving up on the idea that we can change anything for the future of these communities. You guys will repeal this thing and then you'll walk away. You will repeal the card and then you will walk away and leave us to the violence, leave us to the hunger, leave us to the neglected children. It's very easy to forget about remote communities.

Well, at least we have seen that this government has listened to Mr Pearson, because they have extended the cashless debit card for the Cape York community. What we have seen today and what we will see when the amendments come into this place is that the government is, in effect, going to keep the cashless debit card. They probably will change its name, because they want to con the Australian public into believing that somehow they have done what they said at the election. They haven't. They are lying to the Australian public. They have no intention of getting rid of the technology—it is the cashless debit card—because they have already agreed with Mr Pearson and the Family Responsibilities Commission that they will continue to use the cashless debit card until some new technology that they are designing comes into effect, which I will bet will be the cashless debit card by another name.

We've seen numerous comments from other people where the card works. As an example, Mayor Perry Will from the District Council of Ceduna noted, 'We have had no consultation about it at all. The first we heard of it was the Prime Minister's election promise that he was going to do it. Prior to that we had had no representation from any Labor politicians.' Likewise, the mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, John Bowler, said that he was disappointed the decision to scrap the card was made before the Assistant Minister For Social Services, Justine Elliott, had visited the Goldfields in August 2022. He told the hearing:

It almost seems they are putting the cart before the horse. I would have liked for them to come here, consult with us, consult with the community, and then make a decision.

It has become clear that Labor is intent on taking a backward step on income management in Australia just to play politics. However, they were called out for what they were doing and they have now had to make an embarrassing backflip.

I would say to those senators opposite: be honest with the Australian public. Be honest with this chamber about what you're intending to do, because the cashless debit card was designed with absolutely only the best intentions and the best outcomes at heart for those communities that sought for the cashless debit card to be part of the tools that were available in their community to help vulnerable people, particularly those who were dealing with serious addictions to drugs and alcohol, to make sure they could stabilise their life so that they could put food on the table for their children, so their children went to school and they were supported on their journey away from addiction.

The government's absolutely reckless decision to scrap the cashless debit card has created immense uncertainty in these communities. Right now we only have a, 'Trust us. We will fix it later,' approach from this government. Apparently they're going to change the income management legislation to enable an advanced technology to deliver income management. That suggests to me that they're going to use the cashless debit card under the income management legislation, which in a sense just goes to show that this government is not genuine. They are not honest. They are happy to mislead for an election commitment.

It's clear in the evidence that the government supports the continuation of compulsory income management. We know that it is very likely that this week they will extend the instruments to make sure that compulsory income management is continued in the Northern Territory. We know that they are likely to move amendments in this place this afternoon or tomorrow to extend the use of the cashless debit card.

We would hope that they wouldn't waste the massive investment that has already gone into the cashless debit card platform, a platform that allows the universal network of the Australian banking infrastructure to be able to deliver a seamless product for those people who we are trying to get support to stabilise their lives. We know that the CDC is an effective mechanism. The government must stop playing politics. Stop pretending that you are doing something that you're not and actually be honest with the Australian public about the importance of supporting vulnerable Australians on their journey to recovery.

The opposition condemns the government for this bill. We condemn the government for the way they have gone about putting this bill into this place. We condemn the government because of their lack of consultation—in fact, there was no consultation before they made a decision to rip a very valuable support mechanism out of vulnerable communities.

We hope that the government is transparent and comes clean with their intentions going forward. I would hope that they provide more information as they make their contributions on this bill about what their intentions are for compulsory income management going forward, for voluntary income management going forward. I would hope that they are honest about the technology platform that they intend to deliver income management on going forward.

The opposition are moving a second reading amendment. I move:

Omit all words after "that", substitute "further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Senate passes a resolution that it is of the opinion that both of the following conditions have been met:

(a) thorough and appropriate consultation has occurred with all relevant stakeholders and communities about the changes proposed by the bill; and

(b) a bill providing a permanent alternative to income management has been introduced into the Parliament".

The amendment, in effect, seeks for the third reading of this bill not to proceed until such time as the government lays on the table, clearly and distinctly, what its intentions are for income management going forward; and that that legislation has the opportunity to have the appropriate scrutiny of this place and the other place before we move to this reckless interim step that is going to damage lives, create greater uncertainty and deliver absolutely nothing to support the lives of the most vulnerable in our community, which is what the cashless debit card has sought to do for the last six years. The opposition will not be supporting this bill.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:35): The Greens have opposed the punitive and discriminatory cashless debit card since its inception. We welcome this legislation to end its compulsory use in the four cashless debit card trial sites.

Today is a big day for the more than 17,000 people who were forced onto the cashless debit card over the last six years. Anyone living in Ceduna in South Australia, in the Goldfields or East Kimberley regions in WA or in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland who has been on the cashless debit card will finally be able to control their own finances again. They will be able to buy clothes for their kids at second-hand stores, able to pay cash for fruit and veg at street markets and able to buy stuff on eBay, rather than having most of their income quarantined on a debit card. I am celebrating with them and for them today.

The evidence provided to our Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 was stark. Two stories collected by the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children exemplify the appalling impacts of the cashless debit card on people. One person said:

I survive on cash, everything I own is from garage sales or op shops. Most of my food comes from the farmers market or roadside stalls. I cannot afford to buy new things from shops, nor can I afford a lot of store-bought items. I'm not alone it's the only way single mothers can afford to live and feed their children on what is the lowest paid yet most important job.

Another person said:

In the 3 years I've been subjected to this lunacy, the CDC has 1) attempted to prevent me from accessing a private speech therapist in my community. 2) prevented me from using my tax return to buy my son a bedroom suite. 3) put a bunch of people with no mental health, disability, or domestic violence skills in charge of my financial situation in an arbitrary manner. When my ex-husband treated me this way, the family court called it financial control.

Compulsory income management has consistently failed to benefit those who it has been imposed upon and has instead had a demonstrably harmful impact. Abolishing this card is an important step towards social equity and racial justice. We thank all the groups who campaigned and fought against this punitive and horrific measure and called for it to end, and we thank the many people who were vulnerable and brave enough to share their stories of what it meant to be on this card and the damaging impact this card has had on them. They did it in evidence to the inquiry and in their advocacy both before and after the election.

To all of the advocates and activists who are watching as the cashless debit card is abolished in the trial sites with this bill: for your courage, your commitment and your advocacy, thank you. But we must not forget the many people who will continue to be subject to compulsory income management, such as the BasicsCard, once the cashless debit card ends. We must remember the people in the Northern Territory who are on the cashless debit card, who are going to be forced back onto the BasicsCard, albeit an enhanced version of it.

At the Senate inquiry into the cashless debit card, the committee heard of the disproportionate impact of the card on First Nations individuals and communities and its contribution to the ongoing injustices of colonisation and persistent economic inequality experienced by First Nations peoples. This stark division in how we treat First Nations peoples compared to non-Indigenous peoples in Australia will be even more acute if compulsory income management in the Northern Territory continues after the repeal of the cashless debit card. This is why the Greens are calling to an end to all forms of compulsory income management in this country.

In the final four months of the Howard government, Australia was one of only four countries that voted against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As the United Nations described it, the declaration establishes a universal framework of minimum standards and elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms. Article 19 of the declaration specifies:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Although we are glad the Australian government subsequently reversed its position and supported the declaration, there are multiple examples of legislation that has passed through this place that consistently fails to meet the standards outlined in this declaration. Of particular relevance to the bill for us today, Australia's history of colonisation and racism extends into how income management has been designed and deployed in ways that disempower First Nations peoples and that run directly counter to the principles of free, prior and informed consent.

We know this because First Nations peoples have told governments so, over and over again. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory provided evidence to the committee into this bill on exactly this point. They said:

Compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment and perpetuates stigmatisation of Aboriginal people. Rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare.

Change the Record outlined:

Colonisation and the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Country has taken many forms—including theft of land and resources, exploitation of labour, and theft and quarantining of wages and welfare payments. These injustices have caused First Nations peoples to experience persistent economic inequality to this day, and their legacy continues to shape Australia's welfare and social security system.

Compulsory income management is a stark example of the type of discriminatory, coercive and top-down decision-making that has caused very real harm to First Nations individuals and communities.

The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit told our inquiry:

Compulsory income management undermines self-determination for our people. It is a mechanism by which Aboriginal people and communities are further disempowered, particularly given the ongoing impacts of the Northern Territory Intervention.

Dr John Paterson, CEO of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliances Northern Territory, shared with our committee the harm associated with the punitive approaches inflicted as part of the intervention and the racist accusations used to justify them. In a really heartfelt contribution to the inquiry, he said:

This is what happened as a result of the intervention in the Northern Territory all those years ago. . . It causes trauma and stress on us. When you're trying to lead organisations and you're leading your mob, and you've got people out there just casting all these aspersions on you, and labelling you, and you have politicians making all these crazy comments that they can't support with evidence, and you've got to try and live and work with that—I struggle with that.

Fundamentally, this is something we have to talk about with regard to compulsory income management. It is a racist policy that has been imposed by government primarily and predominately on First Nations peoples, and it must end. We know from the evidence that compulsory income management doesn't work. To all those who are arguing for the continuation of compulsory income management as a measure to address social problems, I implore you: listen to the evidence; it doesn't work. We've heard it from the Australian National Audit Office, who said in the second report on the CDC that the Department of Social Security had 'not demonstrated that the CDC program is meeting its intended objectives'. Similarly, the Australian Council of Social Service told our inquiry:

There is no credible or conclusive evidence that these policies have delivered better outcomes for individuals or their communities. Instead, cashless debit and income management are paternalistic policies that restrict basic human rights.

The St Vincent de Paul Society told us:

… the card should be scrapped because it is discriminatory, punitive, costly and ineffective. It has not produced significant, long-term reductions in the use of habitual alcohol, gambling or illicit drugs or improvements in participants' budgeting strategies or socially responsible behaviour.

In fact, rather than simply failing to develop the benefits some of the paternalistic advocates claim, it can actually cause harm. Dr Elise Klein summarised in her evidence:

… research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence; the Life Course Centre, examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, and showed a correlation with negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. The research implications are significant and draws attention to several possible explanations for the reduction of birth weight, including how income management increased stress on mothers, disrupted existing financial arrangements within the household, and created confusion as to how to access funds.

So the Greens will support the passage of this bill. However, we strongly oppose the provisions in the legislation that will enable the minister to move people from the cashless debit card onto other forms of compulsory income management like the BasicsCard or the new, enhanced BasicsCard. I want to be very clear that we will be moving an amendment to reflect that and to reflect our fundamental commitment that compulsory income management should not be imposed on anyone. Rather than being a genuine abolition of compulsory income management, the legislation as currently written will simply shift thousands of people, largely First Nations peoples, from one form of compulsory income management onto another with the same failings and the same punitive impacts. The Greens support an opt-in voluntary option for income management for those who want it. We welcome the announcement from the government that they will be moving towards ending all compulsory income management at some stage. But we think it can and should happen sooner. Compulsory income management is a failed punitive policy that can and should be removed as soon as possible.

Beyond removing compulsory income management, we need to be funding the services and the supports for communities that are needed across Australia. It's simply not enough to remove the harsh punitive conditions that have been in place; we actively need to provide the support and the services that are needed in communities across the country. We've had a decade of Liberal government cutting key programs across Australia, and now a Labor government is arguing that because of the decisions a Liberal government made they can't fund the services that we need. People who are struggling in communities across the country deserve better. That's why at the last election we Greens took a platform of providing a billion dollars extra a year in funding for essential social services so that services like drug and alcohol services, family and domestic violence services, and the community services that are so urgently needed can be funded. That's what needs to be put in place. As we get rid of compulsory income management as soon as possible, we need to be putting in place the funding for those support services that will genuinely allow people to be living their best lives.

I foreshadow that we will have a second reading amendment to address this issue and we will call for cross-party support for the basic principle that, regardless of your position on the cashless debit card, we must ensure that services are provided for people in the community. As well as repealing and abolishing all forms of compulsory income management, there is much more that must be done. We need to be funding services and, critically, we need to be ensuring that anybody in Australia has got the income they need to survive. Anybody in Australia should be able to get a guaranteed livable income.

As part of that guaranteed livable income, there are two key things. One is to end the punitive conditionality that permeates so much of our income support system, which the cashless debit card and compulsory income management absolutely exemplify—the mutual obligations, the income management, and the other programs that make it hard for people to access income support. The second thing we need to be doing is raising the rate of all of our income support payments to ensure that all payment rates are above the poverty line. So let's be clear: we are abolishing the cashless debit card in the four trial sites today but more needs to be done because poverty is a political choice, and we cannot end poverty in Australia if we punish those who are suffering without enough to live on. It is cruel, it is often racist and it must stop.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, you foreshadowed a second reading amendment. Are you moving that or will another member?

Senator RICE: I will be moving it, but we have one before the chair.

The ACTIN G DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, my apologies.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (12:50): Let me tell you, the cashless debit card was flawed from the very beginning, and our government was formed on the platform of no-one being left behind and no-one being held back. The evidence presented to us showed that many CDC participants forced to use the card felt marginalised, embarrassed, and reported a loss of freedom and choice.

Now, let me remind this Senate of a bit of history. It's interesting to hear the other side give a completely forgetful version of history, in my view. In 2016 when I entered the Senate, I spoke about what happened in the NT in July 2007 when the Northern Territory parliament, the Northern Territory people, were intervened on in such an incredibly dramatic way without any input, without any view. It was certainly, when I was the member for Arnhem in 2007 standing in the parliament of the Northern Territory, the most disempowering moment not just for me as the member for Arnhem but for all of those constituents I was there to represent. I could say nothing. I could do nothing. The humiliation of people, the shame that people felt all carried through with the Northern Territory Intervention, which saw the arrival of the BasicsCard. Now I pick up on the reflection of history on the other side, a forgotten reflection of history, in my view, where Senator Ruston says that we on this side don't care about the people of the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard. Well, I ask you: in your time as the previous minister in this role, how many inquiries did you hold into the BasicsCard to actually ask the families of the Northern Territory how they were going?

This has been a very long road for the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, for all of those now who are on the CDC right across Australia. I have objected to this from the day I entered this Senate and I am incredibly proud that our government has brought this as an urgent piece of legislation for this Senate to push through. There are thousands of Australians out there who do not want to be on this card, and it is up to this Senate to make, I believe, the right decision to ensure that this legislation gets through. None of the previous inquiries or reports over four years could say that the CDC was working in such an effective way that it was reducing trauma, that it was reducing domestic violence or that it was increasing people's ability to live a life free of all of that. None of those reports could say that. Let me remind you, senators, that one of the reasons the CDC was introduced was because it was meant to do those things. It was meant to see a better quality of life for Australians. That was the initial intention, but somewhere along the way that got lost, that got forgotten. It took those reports that came to our Senate inquiries—and these were not Senate reports; these were academic reports that were done on each of these communities under the CDC. So when senators opposite get up and say there's been no consultation, let me tell you: this has gone on for a very long time, and that is the very reason why the First Nations caucus committee of the federal Labor Party pushed for this policy to be integral in taking it to the recent federal election.

There is no doubt, Senators, that we from this side of the house are very clear in our objectives here. There has been no mistake. In this term of parliament, in this very short term, through a Senate inquiry that many senators here took part in to look into this bill, we most certainly did listen. And I commend Minister Rishworth and Assistant Minister Elliot for the travels they embarked upon, not long after being appointed in their ministerial positions, to go to each of these CDC sites across the country. They did so straightaway. Why? Because we knew it was important. We knew it was imperative. We knew that there were Australians out there who were suffering, who needed some security about what their future was with this card. That's why Minister Rishworth and Minister Elliot took off across the country, listening, talking and bringing forward this piece of legislation.

And, yes, Senator Ruston, there are amendments to deal with but, hey, that's what Senate inquiries do. Senate inquiries into pieces of legislation do that. Hello? It's what we do with many pieces of legislation because we believe and trust in the democratic process of that inquiry. And that's why these amendments have come into this particular legislation at this particular time—because we waited for the Senate inquiry to see what people were saying. Now, you may jest that we've made an amendment in relation to Cape York. But guess what? We listened to people like Noel Pearson, to organisations like the Family Responsibilities Commission. We listened to them because we knew that it was critical, and that it was different in terms of the way the Family Responsibilities Commission handles the program up in Cape York.

We saw that previously, in opposition, through the many Senate inquiries. In fact, I do recall sitting in Darwin at a Senate inquiry and listening to the Family Responsibilities Commission and others—elders from that community—giving evidence. And I do recall thinking: 'You know what? This is a ground up way of looking at these problems. The elders are involved. They are participating. They're the ones working with their family members, kinship groups, and saying, "Okay, this is the decision we'll make in a consultative way."' And I had thought then that if that particular program had come in in 2014, as opposed to the style of CDC that came in, we might have been in a pretty different sort of place. So I do commend the people of Cape York with what they are trying to do, and we are unashamedly bringing in this amendment because of that.

You ask about the people of the Northern Territory with the BasicsCard. Well, I come back to the start of my speech. I recall the intervention into the Northern Territory in 2007 and what it meant for my constituents, the heavy-handed approach that was used. And, yes, the BasicsCard continued, even under a Labor government—again, to the disquiet and discontent of so many of my constituents—but I never forgot. But I never forgot. I never forgot. I have brought that here into the Senate because I want the Senate to never forget that deep feeling of disempowerment, disrespect and shame.

We may not be dealing with the BasicsCard right now—you can call it whatever you want on the other side—but we are about process on this side. We realise something: you members opposite championed the CDC, yet you had no plans beyond 31 December. For all of those 17,000 people or more on that program, you had no plans beyond 31 December. You just threw it all down, packed your bags, walked off and said: 'It's their problem now. They're the new government; they can handle it.' Guess what? We are handling it, and we are pointing out your inability to have made steps for those thousands of Australians who required greater dignity and greater knowledge of what this parliament was going to do about their future in assisting them in some of the most basic things—financial support, quality of life, being able to pay their bills, being able to pay their rent. The stories of people homeless, not knowing what their future was and still not knowing—that's why we've got to get this bill through. Yes, we will come back to the BasicsCard. I can tell you now, senators, that is one area I will not let this Senate let go of. We need to discuss that with the families of the Northern Territory.

One of the questions I kept asking of the former minister, Senator Ruston, was: How much money was spent doing all those ads across the Northern Territory to get people off the BasicsCard and onto the CDC? How much money did you spend? I could never get an answer to that question, but let me tell you—I'm certainly checking the books now on this side. You spent so much money to try and get at least 4,000 people onto the cashless debit card, but you still didn't worry about the 22,000 people on the BasicsCard. You still had no inquiries, you had no investigations, you had no consultations, and you come in here having a go at us about the BasicsCard? No, no, no, senators. No, no, no, you won't. I will keep reminding you of what you didn't do.

Yes, we have a lot of work on this side, now that we have that responsibility. I am proud to bring this legislation before the Senate, and I have no objections whatsoever to what we are asking of senators here. But I do make this plea to those senators on the crossbenches, and I do remind those senators who came to the Northern Territory in particular—Senator Lambie, from your visit to Central Australia and to far north-east Arnhem Land: remember the Yolngu. Remember the families that spoke to you. They still hold those same messages today about what they want for their future. You know what they said to you. I took the former senator for South Australia Rex Patrick to the Northern Territory, and even he saw the importance of this debate to First Nations people—that, for once, they could be heard instead of being trampled over as we were in 2007, when there was no debate and no discussion.

I reassure the Senate that I will make sure that there is comprehensive, dignified discussion with families about the BasicsCard. I thank the Arnhem Land Progress Association and the work that it has done and continues to do with residents and employees across its many locations. You are the ones that started with your ALPA card, and that was prior to the intervention in 2007. The ALPA card came out months before that did. Imagine if you had been consulted about this kind of income management or money counselling. Imagine if you had been counselled and consulted. Imagine where we could see that ALPA card today, had there been that discussion.

I have a long memory, senators. I will always put on the table where we could've done better on this side, and I will always point out in the Senate where you should've done better on your side.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:05): I too rise to make a contribution to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Without a doubt, ending the cashless debit card will go down in history as the greatest piece of ideological madness that this government will perpetrate in this parliament. In fact, what we've just heard today is that at the last minute they will be rushing amendments through this place in relation to this bill.

One needs to ask why the government would do that, particularly when this was one of their election commitments. It was one of their election commitments, yet they are about to rush some amendments through this place. Perhaps the sheer weight of the evidence they were confronted with was so overwhelming that they finally realised this was an act of nothing more and nothing less than ideological madness. The previous speaker, Senator McCarthy, stated that the government was very clear in its objectives here—so clear that at the last minute we haven't even seen the amendments. We hear the minister saying: 'We got it wrong. It's not great that we got it wrong, seeing as we're out there telling everybody we got it right. We got it wrong, and we are going to have to make some changes.'

Perhaps, though, it's because they listened to the coalition. They listened to the weight of evidence that was presented to them. Perhaps now they better understand that this ideological madness that they were about to undertake would actually have made the lives of so many Australians much worse than their lives are today.

If the bill in its current form goes through, this is what the Albanese Labor government are going to be delivering to thousands and thousands of Australians. They will continue to see the scourge of alcoholism. They will continue to see the scourge of drug addiction, gambling and domestic violence in their communities, where—and this is what the weight of evidence shows—the cashless debit card has successfully contained these problems.

What kind of a government would want to inflict this sort of pain upon fellow Australians? The answer is clear: it is a heartless one, and it is a government that cannot see past its ideological bent on this issue. Given the weight of evidence, given that communities are crying out for this card, those opposite should hang their heads in shame on this issue.

Let's look at the purpose of the cashless debit card. It's a very simple purpose. It's to prevent income support recipients from spending a significant portion of their payments on potentially harmful goods, such as alcohol, illegal drugs and gambling. I am still at a loss to understand how the Albanese Labor government thinks, based on the sheer weight of overwhelming evidence, that this is a bad thing. The cashless debit card was introduced by the former government as a means to ensure that those receiving welfare payments were spending taxpayers money on basic necessities such as food, household bills and clothes, and not on habits that enable a destructive lifestyle.

When you look at and listen to the stories, when you understand the impact that this card has had on families, you see that it has allowed countless families on welfare across Australia to feed, clothe and provide for their children—I don't know why that is a bad thing—rather than to see their money be wasted on drugs, alcohol and gambling. In fact, listening to the weight of evidence, in many instances it has reduced domestic violence and it has reduced alcohol consumption, and when you reduce domestic violence and alcohol consumption you see the number of people presenting to the emergency department at a hospital also decreasing.

Let's look at some figures. As at last year, around $2.5 million worth of transactions on restricted products had been declined in the Goldfields. What does that mean? It means that $2.5 million was, therefore, better spent on food, paying bills, clothes and other essentials rather than on the alternative, which Labor and the Greens would like to allow, of pubs, bottle shops and the TAB. Look beyond the card's stated purpose and at examples of people in the communities who had the cashless debit card. What did they say? I remind the Senate that these are not people in Canberra. These are people who are on the cashless debit card who are living in communities, who have real life experience. They are real people who have realised the benefit of what the cashless debit card has offered them. For example, in Ceduna a community paramedic said, 'Since the cashless debit card, we've definitely seen a decline in domestic violence, alcohol consumption and the number of people presenting to ED at the hospital.' I am at a total loss to understand how that is a bad thing and why the Albanese Labor government wants to get rid of it.

What about community leaders in Laverton in my home state of Western Australia? They have pleaded with the government not to get rid of this card. What have they said? They have been forced to plead for an emergency contingent of police officers and paramedics because, as a result of the legislation that we have before us, they are anticipating a surge in violence when thousands of local residents are taken off the card. That is what this government is going to be responsible for.

In fact, Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders in Laverton told the West Australian newspaper: 'The card has ensured children have been fed and clothed.' That's it. The card has ensured children—young children, who have no control over where this money is going unless they have the cashless debit card—have been fed and clothed. That, quite frankly, is something that all of us in this place take for granted every single day. They fear what is going to happen when this legislation goes through. The Laverton shire president, Patrick Hill, said the community 'had been brought to its knees by alcohol abuse in the years before the locals opted to support a trial of the cashless debit card'. He said:

We had the RFDS here constantly to pick up DV victims, kids were not being looked after and not going to school, (and) you know it's bad when the ambulance needs a police escort to go to incidents … We wanted to explain all that to the Government before they took the card away—

listen to this, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath—

because it's the only think in 30 years that has made any difference.

Well, guess what? Today, because of the ideological hatred that those on the other side have for actually giving people a helping hand to survive, we say goodbye to the only thing that in 30 years has made any difference.

Janice Scott, a Wangkatha elder, established a residents group in Laverton in 2016 out of concern for the welfare of local children. Let's have a look at what she said: 'The biggest difference was for the kids. Suddenly they had food. They had clothing. People used to throw rocks on my roof in the middle of the night, saying "I'm hungry," and that stopped. They had food at home.' Shame on those opposite for demeaning Janice with this legislation.

Indigenous man Marty Sealander is chief executive of Laverton's Pakaanu Aboriginal Corporation. His organisation wanted to the card, and it had 'put things on an even keel in town'. He said: 'What you don't see anymore is the gambling, where people are sitting around playing cards with cash. That's finished. Families don't use the food program at the schools as much. They're buying groceries. And people with serious drinking problems are getting really drunk once a fortnight, not three or four times a fortnight like they used to.'

Then, of course, you have the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, which also backed the retention of the card. Again, they highlighted the benefits that they have seen because of this card. What they said is this: 'The program has demonstrated significant value in the community not only by linking participants to employment but also by providing opportunities for them to engage in training and skills development.' The city's submission to the relevant inquiry said there'd been a 57 per cent decrease in crime—wow! a 57 per cent decrease in crime—from 2018 to 2022, following the rollout of the card. The most significant crime decreases observed were in non-dwelling burglary, property damage, drug offences, dwelling burglary and the stealing of motor vehicles.

This is what they said: 'With the abolishment of the cashless debit card, there is no doubt that the region will need to rely more heavily on the state government to provide additional law-and-order services to ensure that the level of crime does not reach the unprecedented levels experienced three years prior to the introduction of the card.' Again, I am at an absolute loss to know why the Albanese Labor government thinks that abolishing the cashless debit card, even with its amendments, is a good thing, given the sheer and overwhelming weight of evidence that clearly supports the benefits that this card has had to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Then, of course, there is my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price. She is, as we know, an empowered Warlpiri Celtic Australian woman from the Northern Territory. In her maiden speech to the parliament, this is what she said in relation to the cashless debit card. It has:

… allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing the money claimed by kinship demand from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group. I could not offer two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites and guaranteed to worsen the lives of Indigenous people.

What we are debating here today is a piece of legislation that an Indigenous woman from the Northern Territory who has lived and breathed these experiences says will, when it goes through, actually worsen the lives of Indigenous people in this country; she is very open in saying that. What does she then say? She says:

Yet at the same time we spend days and weeks each year recognising Aboriginal Australia in many ways—in symbolic gestures that fail to push the needle one micro-millimetre toward improving the lives of the most marginalised in any genuine way.

Well, guess what? I know whose view I back in relation to this: Senator Nampijinpa Price's. She is someone who will stand up for the rights of Indigenous people in this country—somebody who will only ever ask what practical difference this policy is going to make to the lives of Indigenous people in this country. She speaks from experience. She doesn't come in here as a left-wing elitist. She speaks from experience. She has seen the benefits firsthand, up close, in her own community. That's who the government should be listening to: people like Senator Nampijinpa Price.

The government should hang their heads in shame over this issue. It is ideological madness, nothing more and nothing less—despite Senator McCarthy saying it clearly is not. Quite frankly, the best thing you could do today is pull your legislation, go back out, listen to the community and then end this ideological madness.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:20): It's a pleasure to follow Senator Cash and her comments on this. I'm glad we're having this conversation about the future of the government welfare. It takes many forms and there are many Australian people who receive it. There's doubt many Australians truly need it. There's also no doubt that many Australians who receive it do not truly need it. There are many more Australians who pay for it. It's costing taxpayers almost $200 billion—that's billion, not million—a year. There are almost as many opinions about whether it is too much or too little, and whether it really does any good.

However, there is one opinion which strongly prevails among the Australians who fund this welfare: those who receive it should be accountable for it. This is reflected in some of the conditions and obligations placed on recipients such as education, training and job seeking. Australians who fund welfare with their taxes understandably have an expectation that money is not squandered by those receiving it. They don't like it when recipients spend all their time on the couch instead of actively looking for work, or at least being in training for work. They don't like it when they see recipients spending welfare money on things like alcohol, drugs and pokies. Most recipients don't do this, but it begs the question: why do we have over 900,000 people on unemployment benefits yet jobs aplenty are waiting to be filled? Are these people incompetent, illiterate or just plain lazy, believing everyone else owes them a living, not just a helping hand in a time of need.

When there are others depending on them, like children, there can be big problems. This is especially the case in communities with higher levels of long-term welfare dependency. I won't beat around the bush. Many of these communities are predominantly Aboriginal. It was these problems—children going hungry and without education, alcohol and drug related violence, family and domestic violence, poor health outcomes, widespread crime and social unrest—that the cashless debit card was aimed at addressing. It did this by limiting the spending of up to 80 per cent of a person's welfare income to essential items like food, clothes and rent. The basic idea was to ensure the people on welfare experiencing difficulties with prioritising the essentials themselves no longer had to.

The trials were limited to a few areas, some of them with high levels of long-term dependency and a history of related social problems, particularly alcohol fuelled violence and neglect: the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region in Queensland; Doomadgee in remote north-west Queensland; Cape York in Queensland; parts of the Northern Territory; the Goldfields region around Kalgoorlie and Esperance in Western Australia; the East Kimberley region in Western Australia; and the Ceduna area in South Australia.

The introduction of the cashless debit card was not without controversy or teething problems, some of which persist. It has not been entirely successful in completely quarantining welfare income for spending only on essentials. People have found ways around the restrictions—for example, buying someone else's groceries with the card in exchange for cash, which is then spent on things that cannot be bought with the card. There has also been frustration at its limited utility, especially in online transactions, and also because some shops in the trial communities did not or could not accept the card. However, these problems have been outweighed by some very good outcomes. Violence related to alcohol and drug use has declined significantly in some of these trial regions. More kids are going to school, and more of them are being better fed. Quite a few people on the card have reported that it helps them manage their household expenses much better than before.

I went to the Goldfields region in Western Australia and saw this for myself. I spoke to Indigenous elders, local government leaders, local public servants and others in these communities. I spoke to many who were literally pleading for the cashless debit card to be rolled out much more widely. I heard how, before the card, older family members would force younger ones to hand over all their welfare money. It's a cultural thing for Aborigines to hand over money to other family members. Some who refuse face the risk of being bashed. One employer told me that a young Aboriginal man who worked for him quit his full-time job because his family forced him to hand over his pay. Working provided no future for him. The card prevented a lot of this sort of thing from happening.

One Nation supports the cashless debit card and income management being imposed on people and communities that clearly need it. I'm convinced that it does little harm and does much good, and I want to see the concept extended. To those who say that it unfairly targets Indigenous communities, I say: you're wrong, and you need to get out into those communities like I have. You need to be honest with yourselves and the Australian people and admit that problems like domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug and alcohol dependency, and unemployment are highly prevalent in Indigenous communities.

But wait—there's more, isn't there? 'The Voice will end all that, won't it/' We're going to have the Voice and it's going to fix all these problems! You need to witness and experience the unrest, the violence and the poverty for yourself and understand how income management makes a positive difference. Those supporting this legislation must explain to these communities and the Australian people what you're going to do about the fallout. What are you going to do about the return of the alcohol related violence, the increasing social unrest and the children who will again go hungry when the card is gone? How are you going to ensure that Indigenous children have the same education as non-Indigenous children? You can't—and won't, until you enforce the same laws that require every child to attend school, regardless of race.

Aboriginal parents can be reluctant to send their children to school for fear of them being better educated than themselves. In many cases, it is the parents holding back future generations. Yet the activists and self-interest groups blame white Australia for poor education outcomes and lack of opportunities for Indigenous Australia. Education is the key for Indigenous Australians to pull themselves out of the quagmire of welfare dependency and into a better lifestyle. People in these communities are furious about the government's plan to make income management strictly voluntary for all but a few. They fear that the vacuum from the loss of the card will be filled with more problems, more unrest, more violence and more crime. They fear the return of the chaos and dysfunction that the card was helping to stop.

I note that the government is tacking more money onto this legislation. They've plucked another $65 million to throw at alcohol and drug services, to fix the problems that neither major party has been able to solve for decades. There are people in these communities who are paying over $100 or $150 for what's called a 'pillow'—a five-litre cask of wine. And in some areas they're paying $200 to $300 for a bottle of rum. So, we're going to put in more health services, like dialysis machines, and that's going to solve the problem? Whereas if you restrict the money that they have, so that they're not spending it on this alcohol and drug abuse that is happening—and with the young ones—that might be a good start. It's been proven that it has worked and that it has helped. I'm reasonably confident this won't substitute for the good outcome produced by the cashless debit card. I know it won't. So another $65 million will be thrown at it. I'm sure the Australian people are going to be happy about that one.

This government must prioritise investment in the skilled, homegrown Australian workforce to fill Australian jobs instead of outsourcing them to overseas workers. Higher immigration is not the solution. It's about getting Australians into jobs.

I fully support this cashless debit card. I've been to the meetings and I've actually spoken to the people on the ground. I've been to Doomadgee. I've seen the problems that these communities have.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Allman-Payne ): Senator Hanson, we've now reached a hard marker. It's 1.30, so we're going to proceed to two-minute statements.

Senator HANSON: Alright, and I'll continue my remarks.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (16:34): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:35): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in 2023:

The nature and extent of international digital platforms operated by large overseas-based multinational technology companies—so called 'Big Tech'—exerting power and influence over markets and public debate, to the detriment of Australian democracy and users, with particular reference to:

(a) the market shares of such international digital platforms across the provision of hardware and software services;

(b) vertical integration, or linking of multiple services, products and/or hardware, within such international digital platforms and resultant outcomes on users' ability to exercise choice;

(c) whether algorithms used by such international digital platforms lack transparency, manipulate users and user responses, and contribute to greater concentrations of market power and how regulating this behaviour could lead to better outcomes in the public interest;

(d) the collection and processing of children's data, particularly for the purposes of profiling, behavioural advertising, or other uses;

(e) the adequacy and effectiveness of recent attempts, in Australia and internationally, to regulate the activities of such international digital platforms;

(f) broader impacts of concentration of market power on consumers, competition and macro-economic performance, and potential solutions; and

(g) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:56): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I thank Minister Gallagher and Minister Leigh for taking this document discovery seriously and providing a considered and timely response. Parliament cannot review our handing of COVID-19 unless the data critical to that review is made available promptly and in clear detail. We had many problems with that with both the Queensland Premier and the previous prime minister. Failure to provide that data earlier has led to harmful speculation, which timely reporting would have prevented. I note in the minister's reply that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has now committed to a publishing schedule for health related data that has the effect of returning data disclosure back to pre-COVID turnaround times. Finally. At last.

The data provided in this discovery does indicate Australia's mortality rate is increasing substantially, and our birth rate is falling substantially—yet less than some commentators have been assuming. I believe in making accurate statements based on solid data, so further discussion on this matter should wait for the Causes of death, Australia 2021 publication, which I note, Minister, is due on 19 October. I thank the minister and the government for their attention to this matter, and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:58): On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on its Review of the listing and re-listing of eight organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code

Senator PA TERSON (Victoria) (17:58): I seek leave to make a short contribution of no more than two minutes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Leave is granted.

Senator PATERSON: I rise to make a brief contribution on the tabling of this report. I'd like to focus my contribution on one of the listings in particular of those eight terrorist organisations, although I support the minister's decision to list and relist all of those organisations. I am referring to the listing in its entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

The history of this issue is that Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades were initially listed in November 2003 and have been repeatedly relisted by ministers for home affairs or their equivalents under governments of both persuasions until 4 August 2021. In the PJCIS's last review of that listing, under my chairmanship, we recommended that the evidence was now overwhelmingly clear that the al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas was not a discrete and separate entity to the rest of Hamas but that the entirety of Hamas was responsible, morally, ethically, legally and financially, for the terrorist activities that the al-Qassam Brigades engage in and that, in particular, the so-called 'civilian' leadership of Hamas was, at the very least, guilty of many instances of incitement to violence that meet the definition under the act required. So we recommended for the first time that the government consider broadening that listing to cover Hamas in its entirety, and I'm very pleased that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Ms Andrews, in October 2021, received our report and then, in February 2022, agreed to the committee's recommendation and proceeded to list the organisation in its entirety.

Under the leadership of my colleague in the other place, Mr Khalil, the new committee of the PJCIS has considered that listing and has reaffirmed and supported the minister's decision to list Hamas in its entirety. I want to thank the Labor members of the committee for their support of this listing. This is a very important bipartisan initiative to recognise that all of Hamas is responsible for its violent crimes around the world, and should be held so under our law.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:01): by leave—I move:

That Senator Cox replace Senator McKim on the Economics Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022, and Senator McKim be appointed as a participating member.

Question agreed to.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:13): I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:14): I present a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, and I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

AGED CARE AMENDMENT (IMPLEMENTING CARE REFORM) BILL 2022

Today, the Minister for Aged Care introduces the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. This Bill implements a number of this Government's election commitments that will ensure older Australians receive the aged care they deserve, after a life contributing to their communities and to Australia.

This Bill also responds to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which found significant shortcomings in the care provided to older Australians.

Schedule 1 to this Bill will introduce a new responsibility for approved providers of residential care and of specified kinds of flexible care. From 1 July 2023, these providers will need to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each residential facility, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Bill includes a mechanism for exemptions, on conditions to be specified in subordinate legislation and these details will be specified following consultation with experts and the residential aged care sector.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care will be the decision-maker in respect to any exemptions. Before granting such an exemption, the Secretary must be satisfied that the provider has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the clinical care needs of the care recipients in the facility will be met during the period for which any exemption is in force.

This will ensure the needs of the care recipients are central to any decision to grant an exemption.

Further, the Bill places a time limit on any exemption to a maximum period of 12-months to ensure that exemptions are regularly reviewed. To increase transparency, the Secretary will also be required to make publicly available information in relation to any exemptions that are granted.

This implements an election commitment of the Government and, aspects of Recommendation 86 of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

This new responsibility will save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital Emergency Departments and will ensure that older Australians living in residential aged care have access to the nursing care they deserve.

The Government will also ensure there are more carers with more time to care. Relying on existing powers in the Aged Care Act 1997, the Government will progress subordinate legislation in parallel with this Bill to mandate that everyone living in a residential aged care facility receives an average of 200 minutes of care per day by 1 October 2023, and an average of 215 minutes of care per day by 1 October 2024. This will implement the remainder of Recommendation 86 of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It will mean more care for every resident, every day, and not just for essential medical treatment, but also for basic, important things like helping people take a shower, get dressed or eat a meal.

The Government has committed to capping administration and management costs for people receiving home care. This will help maximise the funding available to address care needs. Currently, approaches to charging differ across providers. While providers are required to publish prices for care and package management, there is little transparency about how these prices are set and there is no cap on the amounts that may be charged. The proposed changes in Schedule 2 to the Bill will enable the Government to reduce high levels of administration and management charges, and remove providers' ability to charge care recipients for ceasing care.

The Government is committed to improving transparency, integrity, and accountability in aged care. The amendments in Schedule 3 to the Bill will ensure that older Australians have access to more and better information on aged care services and providers, including how money is spent on residents' care. This will empower older Australians to make more informed decisions about their care and will strengthen integrity and accountability of providers and incentivise good practice.

The Minister for Aged Care would also like to acknowledge and thank the Community Affairs Legislation Committee members for their time and contributions in considering this Bill. Following feedback received during the Inquiry process and subsequent report, Government moved a number of amendments to the Bill which clarify some points that would otherwise be in subordinate legislation.

One thing has been clear throughout this process—we all have a shared goal to see older Australians receive the care they deserve.

In relation to Recommendation 1 made by the Australian Greens, the Government consulted broadly during the drafting of both the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response Act) 2022, as well as this Bill, including with aged care providers and allied health specialists. The Government will continue to consult closely with the sector and invite commentary on subordinate legislation moving forward.

Residential aged care providers are required to deliver and are funded for the provision of allied health services to residents under existing aged care legislation. The new Australian National Aged Care Classification (AN-ACC) funding model, implemented through the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act 2022 does not alter these requirements. The Government continues to collect information from aged care providers in relation to staffing costs and direct-care hours. This will give Government visibility of the provision of allied health services during and following the transition to AN-ACC and enable Government to respond as necessary.

In relation to Recommendation 4 made by Senator David Pocock, the Government has considered a mechanism for review in relation to an exemption decision. The Quality of Care Principles 2014 will be amended to provide for a decision of the Secretary to grant or not grant an exemption under the those Principles. That decision will be a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Aged Care Act 1997, in accordance with existing provisions around reviewable decisions.

This Bill takes several important steps towards delivering improved nursing care, pricing and transparency and demonstrates this Government's commitment to putting security, dignity, quality, and humanity back into aged care.

I commend this Bill.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2022 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2022

This Bill will make amendments to reduce the regulatory burden and costs for tax payers and improve compliance with tax laws. The Bill also delivers on the Government's election commitment to provide greater flexibility for downsizers aged 55 years and over to make contributions into their superannuation.

Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it easier for small businesses to comply with their record-keeping obligations. If a business is genuinely struggling to keep appropriate tax records, the Commissioner of Taxation will be allowed to offer the business a choice to undertake a record-keeping course rather than paying financial penalties.

The education course will be free, take approximately two hours to complete, and is expected to be delivered online.

Schedule 2 to the Bill extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms in the sharing economy. Platform operators will be required to report to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) information regarding certain transactions that occur on their platforms, such as seller identification and payment details. This information will assist the ATO in its administration of the tax system and ensure sellers on these platforms are meeting their tax obligations.

As Australia's sharing economy continues to grow, a transparency gap has emerged as existing tax reporting requirements do not adequately capture information about transactions in this part of the economy.

Extending existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms will address this transparency gap, helping to level the tax compliance playing field with other business operators in the economy.

Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and makes consequential amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986 to remove the exclusion as deductible expenses of the first $250 of expenses for prescribed courses of education.

These amendments will reduce compliance costs for individuals claiming self-education expense deductions.

The changes will apply to assessments for the 2022-23 income year and later income years, following Royal Assent.

Schedule 4 to the Bill allows small businesses to seek orders from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that stay, or otherwise affect, ATO debt recovery actions while the small business is disputing the underlying tax assessment in the Small Business Taxation Division of the AAT.